What Is Your Opinion Of Snake Handling In The Church?

[koshergrl]

I don't think that it's right to handle your snake in church. But maybe that's just me.

When in doubt, whip it out...and get back to us when you get out of jail.

 

[Taz]

I don't think that it's right to handle your snake in church. But maybe that's just me.

When in doubt, whip it out...and get back to us when you get out of jail.

I'll just say that I'm a priest, so no jail time, just a re-assignment.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

My opinion is if you wanna handle venomous reptiles, get bit, and die, I'm gonna laugh and mock your dead ass for being a fool.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't think that it's right to handle your snake in church. But maybe that's just me.

When in doubt, whip it out...and get back to us when you get out of jail.

I'll just say that I'm a priest, so no jail time, just a re-assignment.

Even better...say you're a teacher.

 

[BluePhantom]

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.

But that's not what it says:

Mark 16:17-18
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.

Do you believe or not?

That section of Mark was not part of the original text. It was added centuries later by an unknown author. The earliest copies of Mark we have do not include those final verses. It ends when the women see Jesus and they said nothing because they were afraid. It just stops cold right there. Apparently someone later thought it needed a better ending and added all that crap about snakes, thus it's probably not very good advice to take. Most Bibles will point this out very clearly.

 

[pillars]

It's awesome, hilarious, and Christians should do more of it.

 

[Spinster]

I agree, we shouldn't go courting trouble. God gave us a brain and we are supposed to make good use of it. In those circumstances where we're troubled/harmed, we should remove ourselves from it. People get all up in arms about how separating ourselves from those who treat us badly, abuse us, or are evil as though we're supposed to ignore what's rational and keep putting our finger in the flame. Those are the individuals who like to misuse scripture to excuse their actions and call us unloving or unforgiving merely to justify what they do and to appease their conscience.

 

[Campbell]

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.

But that's not what it says:

Mark 16:17-18
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.

Do you believe or not?

That section of Mark was not part of the original text. It was added centuries later by an unknown author. The earliest copies of Mark we have do not include those final verses. It ends when the women see Jesus and they said nothing because they were afraid. It just stops cold right there. Apparently someone later thought it needed a better ending and added all that crap about snakes, thus it's probably not very good advice to take. Most Bibles will point this out very clearly.

Yeah....I think it's time for you to do what Thomas Jefferson did. Write your own version of the new testament and leave out the parts with which you disagree. There is one thing you need to be aware of:

2 Peter 1:
…19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Mark 16:
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.

 

[BluePhantom]

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.

But that's not what it says:

Mark 16:17-18
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.

Do you believe or not?

That section of Mark was not part of the original text. It was added centuries later by an unknown author. The earliest copies of Mark we have do not include those final verses. It ends when the women see Jesus and they said nothing because they were afraid. It just stops cold right there. Apparently someone later thought it needed a better ending and added all that crap about snakes, thus it's probably not very good advice to take. Most Bibles will point this out very clearly.

Yeah....I think it's time for you to do what Thomas Jefferson did. Write your own version of the new testament and leave out the parts with which you disagree. There is one thing you need to be aware of:

2 Peter 1:
…19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Mark 16:
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.

Jesus Christ, Campbell, it's not a matter of interpretation or selectively ignoring uncomfortable verses. It's about recognizing the history behind the scripture you are referring to. Those verses are not what the original author of Mark wrote. They were added later and we have no idea who added them. It could have been some drunk asshole that wanted to have a good laugh for all we know. Please note what the NIV says regarding Mark 16:9-20.

"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

The Amplified Bible footnotes: "Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - Amplified Bible

The English Standard Version states: "[Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.][a]"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - English Standard Version

The verses you are referring to are a later addition by someone who wanted to give Mark a bigger bang at the end. Most Bibles don't even try to hide it. It is not original to the Gospel of Mark, thus it has little, if any, validity in my opinion. Had you actually read Mark, you might know that, but clearly you just read the article and didn't bother to do any research before popping off.

What you should really be arguing is that these jack asses handling snakes ought to do their homework too and recognize that Mark didn't say that. Someone else did. They also might want to refer to other verses throughout the Bible which say, in effect, 'don't do stupid shit and expect God to bail you out'.

 

[dblack]

Snakes love being handled.

 

[Campbell]

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.

But that's not what it says:

Mark 16:17-18
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.

Do you believe or not?

That section of Mark was not part of the original text. It was added centuries later by an unknown author. The earliest copies of Mark we have do not include those final verses. It ends when the women see Jesus and they said nothing because they were afraid. It just stops cold right there. Apparently someone later thought it needed a better ending and added all that crap about snakes, thus it's probably not very good advice to take. Most Bibles will point this out very clearly.

Yeah....I think it's time for you to do what Thomas Jefferson did. Write your own version of the new testament and leave out the parts with which you disagree. There is one thing you need to be aware of:

2 Peter 1:
…19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Mark 16:
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.

Jesus Christ, Campbell, it's not a matter of interpretation or selectively ignoring uncomfortable verses. It's about recognizing the history behind the scripture you are referring to. Those verses are not what the original author of Mark wrote. They were added later and we have no idea who added them. It could have been some drunk asshole that wanted to have a good laugh for all we know. Please note what the NIV says regarding Mark 16:9-20.

"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

The Amplified Bible footnotes: "Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - Amplified Bible

The English Standard Version states: "[Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.][a]"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - English Standard Version

The verses you are referring to are a later addition by someone who wanted to give Mark a bigger bang at the end. Most Bibles don't even try to hide it. It is not original to the Gospel of Mark, thus it has little, if any, validity in my opinion. Had you actually read Mark, you might know that, but clearly you just read the article and didn't bother to do any research before popping off.

What you should really be arguing is that these jack asses handling snakes ought to do their homework too and recognize that Mark didn't say that. Someone else did. They also might want to refer to other verses throughout the Bible which say, in effect, 'don't do stupid shit and expect God to bail you out'.

STFU!!!!!
Go try to convince the local gentry in northeast Tennessee and southeast Kentucky that they don't know their scripture. Be sure and go armed....not that it will help you, they're all armed.

 

[BluePhantom]

STFU!!!!!
Go try to convince the local gentry in northeast Tennessee and southeast Kentucky that they don't know their scripture. Be sure and go armed....not that it will help you, they're all armed.

That would be pointless. They are as willing to listen to about the same degree that you are willing to do research on a topic before popping off about it.

 

[zaangalewa]

Snakes love being handled.

That's impossible - because about 100 people died of snakebites in this context in the last decades. This people don't know what they are doing. To challenge the grace of god has nothing to do with the christian religion. Even a seven year old child was killed in this context once - so I would say this people are not even members of the abrahamitic religions - or with other words: they don't believe in god - whatever they think, whatever they say.

Human beings are in general not in the predator-prey system of this animals - so I don't have any other explanation than: this snakes tried to defend their own lifes against agressors. To have to defend the own life against agressors is not a sign of happiness.

 

[Campbell]

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.

But that's not what it says:

Mark 16:17-18
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.

Do you believe or not?

That section of Mark was not part of the original text. It was added centuries later by an unknown author. The earliest copies of Mark we have do not include those final verses. It ends when the women see Jesus and they said nothing because they were afraid. It just stops cold right there. Apparently someone later thought it needed a better ending and added all that crap about snakes, thus it's probably not very good advice to take. Most Bibles will point this out very clearly.

Yeah....I think it's time for you to do what Thomas Jefferson did. Write your own version of the new testament and leave out the parts with which you disagree. There is one thing you need to be aware of:

2 Peter 1:
…19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Mark 16:
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.

Jesus Christ, Campbell, it's not a matter of interpretation or selectively ignoring uncomfortable verses. It's about recognizing the history behind the scripture you are referring to. Those verses are not what the original author of Mark wrote. They were added later and we have no idea who added them. It could have been some drunk asshole that wanted to have a good laugh for all we know. Please note what the NIV says regarding Mark 16:9-20.

"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

The Amplified Bible footnotes: "Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - Amplified Bible

The English Standard Version states: "[Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.][a]"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - English Standard Version

The verses you are referring to are a later addition by someone who wanted to give Mark a bigger bang at the end. Most Bibles don't even try to hide it. It is not original to the Gospel of Mark, thus it has little, if any, validity in my opinion. Had you actually read Mark, you might know that, but clearly you just read the article and didn't bother to do any research before popping off.

What you should really be arguing is that these jack asses handling snakes ought to do their homework too and recognize that Mark didn't say that. Someone else did. They also might want to refer to other verses throughout the Bible which say, in effect, 'don't do stupid shit and expect God to bail you out'.

I know....it was probably the Roman emperor Constantine. He's the guy who picked the winter solstice and vernal equinox for Jesus' b'day and Easter. The Pagans were already using them as holidays so it was convenient to do it that way....or were you aware of that? Those were the two most important Sun god Holidays. Just think....those Pagans actually providing the dates for the two most important Christian holidays. You did know about Constantine and The Council of Nicea I suppose. They decided which scripture to include and which to omit from the new testament. They really started a thing back then....the priests got their pick of the young alter boys and it carried on for all this time. What a load of bullshit and you people accept it without even understanding it.

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

But that's not what it says:

Mark 16:17-18
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.

Do you believe or not?

That section of Mark was not part of the original text. It was added centuries later by an unknown author. The earliest copies of Mark we have do not include those final verses. It ends when the women see Jesus and they said nothing because they were afraid. It just stops cold right there. Apparently someone later thought it needed a better ending and added all that crap about snakes, thus it's probably not very good advice to take. Most Bibles will point this out very clearly.

Yeah....I think it's time for you to do what Thomas Jefferson did. Write your own version of the new testament and leave out the parts with which you disagree. There is one thing you need to be aware of:

2 Peter 1:
…19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Mark 16:
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.

Jesus Christ, Campbell, it's not a matter of interpretation or selectively ignoring uncomfortable verses. It's about recognizing the history behind the scripture you are referring to. Those verses are not what the original author of Mark wrote. They were added later and we have no idea who added them. It could have been some drunk asshole that wanted to have a good laugh for all we know. Please note what the NIV says regarding Mark 16:9-20.

"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

The Amplified Bible footnotes: "Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - Amplified Bible

The English Standard Version states: "[Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.][a]"

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - English Standard Version

The verses you are referring to are a later addition by someone who wanted to give Mark a bigger bang at the end. Most Bibles don't even try to hide it. It is not original to the Gospel of Mark, thus it has little, if any, validity in my opinion. Had you actually read Mark, you might know that, but clearly you just read the article and didn't bother to do any research before popping off.

What you should really be arguing is that these jack asses handling snakes ought to do their homework too and recognize that Mark didn't say that. Someone else did. They also might want to refer to other verses throughout the Bible which say, in effect, 'don't do stupid shit and expect God to bail you out'.

I know....it was probably the Roman emperor Constantine. He's the guy who picked the winter solstice and vernal equinox for Jesus' b'day and Easter. The Pagans were already using them as holidays so it was convenient to do it that way....or were you aware of that? Those were the two most important Sun god Holidays. Just think....those Pagans actually providing the dates for the two most important Christian holidays. You did know about Constantine and The Council of Nicea I suppose. They decided which scripture to include and which to omit from the new testament. They really started a thing back then....the priests got their pick of the young alter boys and it carried on for all this time. What a load of bullshit and you people accept it without even understanding it.

Everyone could know that heathens and christians lived together very peaceful, if he would think about why the 'jewish' seven days week - a clear spiritual and psychological model of time - has so many names of christian gods like for example Thor or Freya for Thursday and Friday. It made sense to celebrate together in the same days. Nevertheless is Easter Easter, Christmas Christmas and so on and so on. "Krampus" is for example not an antichristian devil - like many people today seem to think - he was traditionally the bodyguard of Santa Claus.

It is also nothing new that the early Christians lived without bible a long row of centuries. The bible was not essential for Christians. The council of Nicea authorized some important writings - what makes not anything wrong what anyone in the world said, says or will say. Nevertheless the council of Nicea made a great job.

And it's by the way 25-36 times more probable that a man in the western world is a child molestor if he is not a priest of the catholic church.

 

[RWNJ]

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

Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. These people are idiots. I'm sure that God expects us to have enough intelligence to not jump off a cliff and see if God will save us from the law of Gravity. Same thing with the snakes.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Whatever puts money in the guitar case..I mean collection plate.

 

[zaangalewa]

Whatever puts money in the guitar case..I mean collection plate.

That's county fair and not religion.

 

[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

Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. These people are idiots. I'm sure that God expects us to have enough intelligence to not jump off a cliff and see if God will save us from the law of Gravity. Same thing with the snakes.

Well...except the bible didn't say anything about gravity or jumping off a cliff. People mentioned in there were too busy killing others...sometimes members of their own family. Now snake handling is a whole other subject:

 

[BluePhantom]

I know....it was probably the Roman emperor Constantine. He's the guy who picked the winter solstice and vernal equinox for Jesus' b'day and Easter. The Pagans were already using them as holidays so it was convenient to do it that way....or were you aware of that? Those were the two most important Sun god Holidays. Just think....those Pagans actually providing the dates for the two most important Christian holidays. You did know about Constantine and The Council of Nicea I suppose. They decided which scripture to include and which to omit from the new testament. They really started a thing back then....the priests got their pick of the young alter boys and it carried on for all this time. What a load of bullshit and you people accept it without even understanding it.

The council of Nicea did not address the Biblical canon at all. They defined what "Christianity" was with the Nicean Creed and debated Arianism. They never even discussed what books would be included in the New Testament. Good Christ...once again popping off about shit you know nothing about.