Is this Bible verse about believers and poison to be taken literally?

I have an idea. I will feed poison to some christians without them knowing it. If they don't die it will prove that it's true.The problem is this - That would provide me with proof of the existance of God. God doesn't like that type of proof and thus will allow the christians to die (because I am tempting him). But that would mean that God was a liar when he said that belief in him would protect them.....So who shall I give the rat poison to first?

I still think my idea is better.It's the perfect test - is God going to let his followers die just to frustrate me! It's the perfect chance for him to prove he is not an evil god!

Everything seems to be avoiding my question - so if I feed poison to a "true" christian (without their knowledge) then they should be protected from it's effects? They are not trying to tempt their god, so what is the problem?Are we really saying that God will remove that protect to avoid my testing of his power? Is that not like the insurance company pulling your cover because a burglar really mean to steal your stuff?This has been wide implications if you think about it. it suggests the presense of non-belief or the actions of a non-believer can negate the promises of God.This message has been edited by General Krull, 28-Apr-2005 07:13 PM