What Is Your Opinion Of Snake Handling In The Church?

[LOki]

What Is Your Opinion Of Snake Handling In The Church?

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

I'm enthusiastically all for it. The more lethally venomous the snake, the better.

I might even be in favor of compulsory snake handling in church.

 

[Avatar4321]

Seems about as ridiculous as atheism.

 

[Ravi]

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

Darwin in action.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The Bible also teaches us not to put God to any foolish tests. This is an example of misinterpreting Scripture. The Bible never taught anyone to practice snake handling. After Paul was shipwrecked and warming himself beside a fire a viper bit him and latched hold of him. He shook it off into the fire. Nothing happened to him because he was under the protection of God. Satan could not kill God's servant. He still can't. He's a defeated foe and the story of Job is the best picture of just how limited Satan's freedom is to attack the believer. Without permission from God first? He cannot do anything.

 

[Campbell]

The Bible also teaches us not to put God to any foolish tests. This is an example of misinterpreting Scripture. The Bible never taught anyone to practice snake handling. After Paul was shipwrecked and warming himself beside a fire a viper bit him and latched hold of him. He shook it off into the fire. Nothing happened to him because he was under the protection of God. Satan could not kill God's servant. He still can't. He's a defeated foe and the story of Job is the best picture of just how limited Satan's freedom is to attack the believer. Without permission from God first? He cannot do anything.

We knew you would know the real intent...being such a world renowned expert on the holly bibble.

 

[Campbell]

So did Saint Mark have it screwed up? I'll bet the virgin birth and savior of the world stuff falls into the same category.

Ho hum. You didn't prevail in a polite discussion on scripture so you needle Catholic faith.

I'm 81 years old and I had the new testament memorized chapter and verse while I was still in my twenties. Don't come at me about any kind of discussion about the scriptures. Most Christians today know a few verses they've memorized to comfort them and a few their favorite man on car and clothes day told them about and beyond that they don't know shit!!

Being old enough to brag about memorizing scripture some 60 years ago, you surely know that does not make you always right. Since you don't find me worthy to discuss scriptures with you, I wonder why you bothered, only to give up and insult me.

One more thing. Please don't lump me into your prejudices about "most Christians today".

I'm sorry if I offended you. I can understand being touchy about believing some 2000 year old fairy tale. I'm glad that I don't!!

You are in my prayers.

No Thank You.....the idea of being involved in your personal waste of breath doesn't interest me in the least.

 

[zaangalewa]

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

Stupid and trying to be showoffs. I imagine due to his stupidity the snake was killed.

I find it so funny that adults thinking that invoking the name of Jesus makes them as powerful as Jesus was depicted in the Bible.

(for the record I have never seen a RCC priest do this)

That's easy.....the RCC priests have better sense. It's just some more of your basic bullshit which that ancient book is full of. Virgin Birth and Resurrection come to mind. You know the best one though is feeding 5000 men plus women and children who also ate with two fish and five loaves then gathering 12 baskets of leftovers. LMAO!!! Twelve Baskets Of Left Overs????

Try it. Make an experiment. Organize an open air concert for 5000 people and tell the guests you have only two fish and five loaves for them to eat. Then count the baskets of leftovers afterwards.

 

[Compost]

Ho hum. You didn't prevail in a polite discussion on scripture so you needle Catholic faith.

I'm 81 years old and I had the new testament memorized chapter and verse while I was still in my twenties. Don't come at me about any kind of discussion about the scriptures. Most Christians today know a few verses they've memorized to comfort them and a few their favorite man on car and clothes day told them about and beyond that they don't know shit!!

Being old enough to brag about memorizing scripture some 60 years ago, you surely know that does not make you always right. Since you don't find me worthy to discuss scriptures with you, I wonder why you bothered, only to give up and insult me.

One more thing. Please don't lump me into your prejudices about "most Christians today".

I'm sorry if I offended you. I can understand being touchy about believing some 2000 year old fairy tale. I'm glad that I don't!!

You are in my prayers.

No Thank You.....the idea of being involved in your personal waste of breath doesn't interest me in the least.

You don't get a say.

 

[amrchaos]

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

Something about snake chamers in Torah.

Not to practice the art of a chover chaver (casting spells over snakes and scorpions) (Deut. 18:11

10There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire, a soothsayer, a diviner of [auspicious] times, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
11or a charmer, a pithom sorcerer, a yido'a sorcerer, or a necromancer.
12For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations, the Lord, your God is driving them out from before you.

[looks like I'll have some company in Perdition hehe]

(or a charmer: One who collects snakes, scorpions or other creatures into one place.)
Deuteronomy - Chapter 18 (Parshah Shoftim)

Hey buddy--does that mean the Hebrews/Jews condemn zookeeping?
How about Sea World--Is it considered evil too?

Are some of the worlds greatest aquarium also condemned?
How about dead creatures like those found in some museums?

 

[amrchaos]

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

Stupid and trying to be showoffs. I imagine due to his stupidity the snake was killed.

I find it so funny that adults thinking that invoking the name of Jesus makes them as powerful as Jesus was depicted in the Bible.

(for the record I have never seen a RCC priest do this)

That's easy.....the RCC priests have better sense. It's just some more of your basic bullshit which that ancient book is full of. Virgin Birth and Resurrection come to mind. You know the best one though is feeding 5000 men plus women and children who also ate with two fish and five loaves then gathering 12 baskets of leftovers. LMAO!!! Twelve Baskets Of Left Overs????

Try it. Make an experiment. Organize an open air concert for 5000 people and tell the guests you have only two fish and five loaves for them to eat. Then count the baskets of leftovers afterwards.

You know, I probably would just past the basket.
In any case, this probably allegory. What is symbolically being passed around. What is symbolically the left overs.

A little compassion not only can go a long way, it can magnify as it passes from person to person.

 

[amrchaos]

The Bible also teaches us not to put God to any foolish tests. This is an example of misinterpreting Scripture. The Bible never taught anyone to practice snake handling. After Paul was shipwrecked and warming himself beside a fire a viper bit him and latched hold of him. He shook it off into the fire. Nothing happened to him because he was under the protection of God. Satan could not kill God's servant. He still can't. He's a defeated foe and the story of Job is the best picture of just how limited Satan's freedom is to attack the believer. Without permission from God first? He cannot do anything.

Guys like you have a hard time determining who is being tested. That is not a test for god--that is a test for believers.

Or better, a test on how well you understand what is being said in these passages.

 

[peach174]

I think that handling snakes just may be testing God. I read the Mark passage that God protects his people from dangers in the world, snakes and poisons are mentioned. This isn't a call to take poison and pick up deadly snakes. In other words, you don't go looking for trouble. You don't go out of your way to court danger. I think the Mark passage means God protects his people as they follow Him and encounter dangers from the enemy. I don't think you prove your trust in God by messing with poisons.

I think it's in Luke where Jesus says do not put God to the test.

For that particular type of religion it is not about testing God.
It is all about each person testing their own faith in God.
I think it is wrong also, but it is their right to worship the way they want.
Just like some Southern Baptists who think it is wrong to wear makeup because Jezebel did.
It was not about her wearing makeup but all about what she did.

It is also about freedom to worship the way each person wants. They are comfortable with it and the rest of us should leave them alone to do so.
Our 1st amendment is why we have so many types of religions to choose from.

 

[Compost]

I think that handling snakes just may be testing God. I read the Mark passage that God protects his people from dangers in the world, snakes and poisons are mentioned. This isn't a call to take poison and pick up deadly snakes. In other words, you don't go looking for trouble. You don't go out of your way to court danger. I think the Mark passage means God protects his people as they follow Him and encounter dangers from the enemy. I don't think you prove your trust in God by messing with poisons.

I think it's in Luke where Jesus says do not put God to the test.

For that particular type of religion it is not about testing God.
It is all about each person testing their own faith in God.
I think it is wrong also, but it is their right to worship the way they want.
Just like some Southern Baptists who think it is wrong to wear makeup because Jezebel did.
It was not about her wearing makeup but all about what she did.

It is also about freedom to worship the way each person wants. They are comfortable with it and the rest of us should leave them alone to do so.
Our 1st amendment is why we have so many types of religions to choose from.

That is interesting. I didn't know they were testing their own faith in God by picking up a venomous snake. I don't quite understand how that works for them, too bad someone who does actual snake handling isn't available to comment. It might be quite enlightening.

That they and everybody have a right to worship as they wish is something I thought went without saying. The OP asked for opinions on snake handling in church. How sad and predictable that we cannot calmly offer opinions that disagree with a group's religious traditions without someone feeling the need to follow it up with a PC line about people's freedoms.

 

[Penelope]

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

Stupid and trying to be showoffs. I imagine due to his stupidity the snake was killed.

I find it so funny that adults thinking that invoking the name of Jesus makes them as powerful as Jesus was depicted in the Bible.

(for the record I have never seen a RCC priest do this)

That's easy.....the RCC priests have better sense. It's just some more of your basic bullshit which that ancient book is full of. Virgin Birth and Resurrection come to mind. You know the best one though is feeding 5000 men plus women and children who also ate with two fish and five loaves then gathering 12 baskets of leftovers. LMAO!!! Twelve Baskets Of Left Overs????

12 is the magical no.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

There are tons of inconsistencies within the bible. That is one reason for all the denominations of christianity. They take what they like and use that to promote their view.

You can go to the very beginning of the bible and see problems with this. Woman tempted man to eat the apple, thus she had to suffer in child birth, and serve the man. and all of the women to come after, sins of the parents are thus passed down to their offsprings and receive the same punishment. And it is present even in the New Testament. I always wondered what female animals did to be cursed with childbearing. But then again he made animals first and told them to be fruitful and multiply, yet with man he waited and had to think of a partner for him, although in the first chapter he create both man and woman, then created woman in the secound chapter. The second chapter reads like a revision of the first to force woman into a subservient role. And I am not the only one that thought this because you can read the gnostic text to see who they explained it, yet they do so to promote their view, but the answer that made the most sense was that they wanted woman subservient to man.

Yet christians today do not believe that, but it is the very foundation on which they rely.

I could go on and on, yet the defenders will always say I am misinterpreting it. But I am not, their view has changed from the original context since the founding of christianity. They have evolved. I am not complaining though because it was a good change.

Slavery, accepted by God, it took man to end it in most of the world.

 

[peach174]

I think that handling snakes just may be testing God. I read the Mark passage that God protects his people from dangers in the world, snakes and poisons are mentioned. This isn't a call to take poison and pick up deadly snakes. In other words, you don't go looking for trouble. You don't go out of your way to court danger. I think the Mark passage means God protects his people as they follow Him and encounter dangers from the enemy. I don't think you prove your trust in God by messing with poisons.

I think it's in Luke where Jesus says do not put God to the test.

For that particular type of religion it is not about testing God.
It is all about each person testing their own faith in God.
I think it is wrong also, but it is their right to worship the way they want.
Just like some Southern Baptists who think it is wrong to wear makeup because Jezebel did.
It was not about her wearing makeup but all about what she did.

It is also about freedom to worship the way each person wants. They are comfortable with it and the rest of us should leave them alone to do so.
Our 1st amendment is why we have so many types of religions to choose from.

That is interesting. I didn't know they were testing their own faith in God by picking up a venomous snake. I don't quite understand how that works for them, too bad someone who does actual snake handling isn't available to comment. It might be quite enlightening.

That they and everybody have a right to worship as they wish is something I thought went without saying. The OP asked for opinions on snake handling in church. How sad and predictable that we cannot calmly offer opinions that disagree with a group's religious traditions without someone feeling the need to follow it up with a PC line about people's freedoms.

I agreed with you and now you put me down?
I know a few of them, that is how I know about them. To them it is about having enough faith in God in order to do as the Bible said, if you have enough faith you can move mountains, heal the sick and walk on water through God. They are testing themselves.
I was not being PC, I was referring about those in this Nation who think that way and are not allowing Christian public faith.

 

[Compost]

I think that handling snakes just may be testing God. I read the Mark passage that God protects his people from dangers in the world, snakes and poisons are mentioned. This isn't a call to take poison and pick up deadly snakes. In other words, you don't go looking for trouble. You don't go out of your way to court danger. I think the Mark passage means God protects his people as they follow Him and encounter dangers from the enemy. I don't think you prove your trust in God by messing with poisons.

I think it's in Luke where Jesus says do not put God to the test.

For that particular type of religion it is not about testing God.
It is all about each person testing their own faith in God.
I think it is wrong also, but it is their right to worship the way they want.
Just like some Southern Baptists who think it is wrong to wear makeup because Jezebel did.
It was not about her wearing makeup but all about what she did.

It is also about freedom to worship the way each person wants. They are comfortable with it and the rest of us should leave them alone to do so.
Our 1st amendment is why we have so many types of religions to choose from.

That is interesting. I didn't know they were testing their own faith in God by picking up a venomous snake. I don't quite understand how that works for them, too bad someone who does actual snake handling isn't available to comment. It might be quite enlightening.

That they and everybody have a right to worship as they wish is something I thought went without saying. The OP asked for opinions on snake handling in church. How sad and predictable that we cannot calmly offer opinions that disagree with a group's religious traditions without someone feeling the need to follow it up with a PC line about people's freedoms.

I agreed with you and now you put me down?
I know a few of them, that is how I know about them. To them it is about having enough faith in God in order to do as the Bible said, if you have enough faith you can move mountains, heal the sick and walk on water through God. They are testing themselves.
I was not being PC, I was referring about those in this Nation who think that way and are not allowing Christian public faith.

I apologize. I assumed you were PCing. It is a pet peeve of mine and apparently I jumped to the conclusion that you were mouthing words for the sake of mouthing them thus mucking up what could be an interesting discussion on scripture. I'm sorry.

 

[Campbell]

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

Stupid and trying to be showoffs. I imagine due to his stupidity the snake was killed.

I find it so funny that adults thinking that invoking the name of Jesus makes them as powerful as Jesus was depicted in the Bible.

(for the record I have never seen a RCC priest do this)

That's easy.....the RCC priests have better sense. It's just some more of your basic bullshit which that ancient book is full of. Virgin Birth and Resurrection come to mind. You know the best one though is feeding 5000 men plus women and children who also ate with two fish and five loaves then gathering 12 baskets of leftovers. LMAO!!! Twelve Baskets Of Left Overs????

Try it. Make an experiment. Organize an open air concert for 5000 people and tell the guests you have only two fish and five loaves for them to eat. Then count the baskets of leftovers afterwards.

You know, I probably would just past the basket.
In any case, this probably allegory. What is symbolically being passed around. What is symbolically the left overs.

A little compassion not only can go a long way, it can magnify as it passes from person to person.

What it IS is a goddam lie!

 

[Campbell]

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

There are tons of inconsistencies within the bible. That is one reason for all the denominations of christianity. They take what they like and use that to promote their view.

You can go to the very beginning of the bible and see problems with this. Woman tempted man to eat the apple, thus she had to suffer in child birth, and serve the man. and all of the women to come after, sins of the parents are thus passed down to their offsprings and receive the same punishment. And it is present even in the New Testament. I always wondered what female animals did to be cursed with childbearing. But then again he made animals first and told them to be fruitful and multiply, yet with man he waited and had to think of a partner for him, although in the first chapter he create both man and woman, then created woman in the secound chapter. The second chapter reads like a revision of the first to force woman into a subservient role. And I am not the only one that thought this because you can read the gnostic text to see who they explained it, yet they do so to promote their view, but the answer that made the most sense was that they wanted woman subservient to man.

Yet christians today do not believe that, but it is the very foundation on which they rely.

I could go on and on, yet the defenders will always say I am misinterpreting it. But I am not, their view has changed from the original context since the founding of christianity. They have evolved. I am not complaining though because it was a good change.

Slavery, accepted by God, it took man to end it in most of the world.

So you actually believe two teens in a garden with a talking snake really happened...LOL!

 

[TimothysAlaska]

Some believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

This pastor and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands:

Snake-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

There are tons of inconsistencies within the bible. That is one reason for all the denominations of christianity. They take what they like and use that to promote their view.

You can go to the very beginning of the bible and see problems with this. Woman tempted man to eat the apple, thus she had to suffer in child birth, and serve the man. and all of the women to come after, sins of the parents are thus passed down to their offsprings and receive the same punishment. And it is present even in the New Testament. I always wondered what female animals did to be cursed with childbearing. But then again he made animals first and told them to be fruitful and multiply, yet with man he waited and had to think of a partner for him, although in the first chapter he create both man and woman, then created woman in the secound chapter. The second chapter reads like a revision of the first to force woman into a subservient role. And I am not the only one that thought this because you can read the gnostic text to see who they explained it, yet they do so to promote their view, but the answer that made the most sense was that they wanted woman subservient to man.

Yet christians today do not believe that, but it is the very foundation on which they rely.

I could go on and on, yet the defenders will always say I am misinterpreting it. But I am not, their view has changed from the original context since the founding of christianity. They have evolved. I am not complaining though because it was a good change.

Slavery, accepted by God, it took man to end it in most of the world.

So you actually believe two teens in a garden with a talking snake really happened...LOL!

Newp I do not believe any of it.