cognac

What about my question is a rationalization or an excuse?

You're not going to get an argument from me that the passage isn't absurd. I'm an agnostic, so I have no dog in the "Bible is/is not God's Word" fight that you'd like to start, but my point is that if you issue a challenge, you out to make it relevant to those you're giving it to. I don't see any attempt on your part to do so. You've opened a Bible and found something you think ridiculous. Well, a lot of Christians also believe that Markan passage is strange, and given there is no corroboration elsewhere of such mandates and that the passage itself is suspect, they see no reason to believe it. You've only proven you believe the same thing that some Christians believe. Gosh, isn't that special.

Voice of reason

Your assumptions are astounding. I want to start a "fight"??? And you know this how? Perhaps by assuming?

I offer this as discussion,it is a discussion forum right? As you can tell from my post count I have not been here that long. So I have net read every archive that existes here and failed to see the rule that states that I must.

I presumed you to be a christian since you bothered to respond in a defensive fashion. That is why I say more rationalization and excuses.

cognac

No, I'm not aware of a rule that says you have to read the archive before posting, but it's rather like turning on the flashlight before stepping out barefoot in the yard at night, otherwise your toes may experience unpleasantries.

All you have to do is click on my user name on the left over there and you can see from my profile that I'm agnostic. I was using "fight" in a figurative sense. You seem to be as literal about words as the people you wish to challenge. Lighten up.

As to my purpose for posting, I thought the only thing I was defending was rational discourse, which assumes you try to understand the other side when you are talking to them, and especially if you're taking aim. You seem not to get it, nor seem to have any inclination to educate yourself about them, thus you're not likely to hit your mark.

I was simply stating that your challenge means nothing unless it is posed to an inerrantist of a particular kind. And some of those inerrantists actually do take up snakes and drink poison, as was pointed out above.

Atticus_Finch

Your challenge is a false one and says nothing about the faith of those you challenge. A Christian should strive to follow the example of Christ in his/her life. If a Christian were to take up your challenge he/she would be failing to do so. In Matthew 4 Satan tempts Jesus as follows:

Right there is a similar promise of protection. But, to drink the poison would be to put God to the test and would itself be a sin. Further, the quote from Mark you use does not instruct Christians to drink poison. Therefore, your challenge is false and meaningless.

Regards,

Finch

anthony93

All I really was getting at is this: is the passage meant to be taken literally? If so, how? I mean, I havent heard of too many people bringing turpentine to church to drink, so obviously there is some room for consideration. Yes, there are "sects" that do take it literally but they are a very small minority.
Now, if it is a later addition, the history behind the addition and why it was favored over the other "versions" is what I am interested in. BTW, most any intro to NT theology book will point out that the idea of the Canon was developed over time. Therefore, the Church, by whatever definition you might want to use, has a role in determining the authenticity of the scriptures. Yes I know that isn't how it always worked out. Or even usually. Thank Constantine for that, I guess. We know the NT wasn't handed over by an angel ( like, the Koran supposedly was ).

So, again, what was the point of the passage? It is absurd when Christians pick and choose verses out of context to "prove" something that clearly is just not supported by the text as a whole. But really, its just as absurd for so called skeptics to "disprove" some doctrine or position in the same manner.

Atticus_Finch

Bump...nobody has really responded.

mknomad5

No need for rationalizations or apologetics on this one. You’ve simply twisted the context. Jesus did not say his believers would “drink ANY poison (at any time)� and be immune. He said that this is one miracle which will accompany believer’s actions, and be evidence that they are to be accepted as his disciples, and also evidence that they are employing the type of faith he advocates, i.e. strong faith, enough faith and the right type with which to do miracles. Why don’t these miracles happen? Perhaps because Jesus overestimated humanity’s capacity to find “the path� which he did. I’ll be happy to cringe now if it makes you feel better.

Desty Nova

I find this interesting, because so many xians thoughout my life have said, "Well, it is in the bible, so therefore it MUST be true." :banghead:

Why should they "see no reason to believe" a single silly passage, and yet they believe other, equally silly passages without question? :huh:

For instance, I opened a bible and read a very silly passage myself, in Genesis. It claimed the entire UNIVERSE was created in a few days, and that light was created before there were any stars to produce it, et cetera ad tedium. I personally find this passage (and most of the rest of the bible for that matter) to be very suspect, not to mention absurd, so I see no reason to believe it. But I don't then turn around and claim that the "rest" of the bible is solid fact!

Why should a xian claim the entire bible as factual, then "see no reason to believe" a single passage? :huh:

...Sounds like the "pick and choose" or "cafeteria" xian approach.

-Desty

Sorry about the sloppy post, I am still new at this but learning fast!

Dargo

Actually, even many fundies doubt that 16:9-20 was part of the original manuscript of Mark, so they're allowed to disregard it without compromising too much. How they can be sure that other parts of the Bible aren't later additions is somewhat more inexplicable.

cognac

Exactly. That's why I qualified it -- "inerrantists of a certain kind."

I'm not an apologist for fundies, but I have encountered quite a few, and I think the basic argument would be that other parts of the Bible don't have the same kinds of problems, with a few exceptions, maybe like the woman at the well story, although it's not as doctrinally suspect. My gut feeling is that their dogma is what guides them first and foremost in determining the legitimacy of any passage as a prescription for belief or practice. If it fits their doctrine then its solid, if not, it's suspect. Yes, you can call foul.