What Is Your Opinion Of Snake Handling In The Church?

[rightwinger]

Snake handling is as legitimate as any other 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

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.

Good!!

 

[rightwinger]

Jesus wants you to handle snakes to show your love of god

 

[The Professor]

The last twelve verses in Mark (mark 16:9-20) are not accepted as genuine by all Christians.

The NIV contains the following disclaimer immediately after Mark 16:8: “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.”

The Message Bible states in a footnote: “Note: Mark 16:9-20 is contained only in later manuscripts.”

The New Century Versions says immediately after verse 8 : “Verses 9-20 are not included in some of the earliest surviving Greek copies of Mark.”

The Amplified Bible contains the following footnote: “Some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20.”

The Living Translation Bible has the following footnote: “The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel. A few include both the “shorter ending” and the “longer ending.” The majority of manuscripts include the “longer ending” immediately after verse 8.”

The NKJV states in a footnote: “Verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sanaiticus and Codex Vaticanus although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.”

(NU-Text These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in "The New Testament Text." They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-seventh edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies fourth edition (U), hence the acronym, "NU-Text.")

In summary, the authenticity of the last12 verses in Mark are actually disputed by the Christian community. Therefore, they do not carry the same weight as other scripture. It is interesting that there are several manuscripts of Mark and they are quite different.

NOTE: According to the NIV' footnote at the end of the book of Mark, the chapter should have ended with these words (after omitting verses 9-20): Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Some who accept the disputed texts as authoritative say that God should not be tempted and therefore handling of snakes and the intentional ingestion of poison should be avoided: however, this does not resolve anything in that there are certainly Christians who are accidentally bitten by snakes or unknowingly consume poisonous substances and suffer harm including death. If the disputed verses do not refer to those who are accidentally inflicted and cannot refer to those who avoid intentional exposure to prove a point, then who in the hell does it refer to?? Are the words simply meaningless? I suggest the verses are not Biblical authoritative and should be removed the Bible. There are many Christians who would agree with me.

 

[rightwinger]

Adam and Eve were tempted by a snake

Handling them in church shows them who is boss

 

[centrifuge]

Adam and Eve were tempted by a snake

Handling them in church shows them who is boss

what about handling a snake jn the shower?

 

[Zander]

Wacky stuff...

 

[Campbell]

Adam and Eve were tempted by a snake

Handling them in church shows them who is boss

what about handling a snake jn the shower?

What about handling a worm in the shower?

 

[centrifuge]

Adam and Eve were tempted by a snake

Handling them in church shows them who is boss

what about handling a snake jn the shower?

What about handling a worm in the shower?

i have no experience in such matters

 

[Campbell]

Adam and Eve were tempted by a snake

Handling them in church shows them who is boss

what about handling a snake jn the shower?

What about handling a worm in the shower?

i have no experience in such matters

I just wanted to let people know that everyone doesn't have a snake.

 

[koshergrl]

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)

We have Christ in us when we are saved...he works through us so we potentially have the power of Christ. It's not OUR power, but His...but we do have it.

This is not an endorsement of snake handling. I also think they are tempting God.

 

[zaangalewa]

Snake handling is as legitimate as any other religion

No - because animals have rights. This snakes have the right to live in beauty, freedom and wilderness. This incompetent people don't have any right to provocate this innocent creatures of god only on reason of egotisms. They need a license for their circus - including a good knowledge about the species-appropriate living coniditions of this snakes - and not a wrong excuse, because they like to provocate religious people from lots of religions all over the world - especially all Christians.

 

[zaangalewa]

Jesus wants you to handle snakes to show your love of god

Explain me please what this strange behavior has to do with love. Love is a constructing power - not a [self-]destructive behavior.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

If stupid people want to do stupid things and make the world a little less stupid one person at a time, who am I to complain?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Southern Baptists do not object to makeup. Fundamentalist Baptists don't either. And among the denominations that do (Seventh Day Adventist comes to mind) it isn't because of JEZEBEL lol. It's because they don't believe in vanity, or being intentionally provacative towards the world.

Believe me though....Southern Baptists are aok with makeup and hairspray and colorful modern dresses and all that

 

[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.

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.

Southern Baptists do not object to makeup. Fundamentalist Baptists don't either. And among the denominations that do (Seventh Day Adventist comes to mind) it isn't because of JEZEBEL lol. It's because they don't believe in vanity, or being intentionally provacative towards the world.

Believe me though....Southern Baptists are aok with makeup and hairspray and colorful modern dresses and all that

What about falsies? Are Christian women permitted to enhance their bosoms on car and clothes day?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Southern Baptists do not object to makeup. Fundamentalist Baptists don't either. And among the denominations that do (Seventh Day Adventist comes to mind) it isn't because of JEZEBEL lol. It's because they don't believe in vanity, or being intentionally provacative towards the world.

Believe me though....Southern Baptists are aok with makeup and hairspray and colorful modern dresses and all that

What about falsies? Are Christian women permitted to enhance their bosoms on car and clothes day?

They're allowed to do whatever they please. After all, it isn't Islam.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

Southern Baptists do not object to makeup. Fundamentalist Baptists don't either. And among the denominations that do (Seventh Day Adventist comes to mind) it isn't because of JEZEBEL lol. It's because they don't believe in vanity, or being intentionally provacative towards the world.

Believe me though....Southern Baptists are aok with makeup and hairspray and colorful modern dresses and all that

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
- 1 Timothy 2, KJV

 

[Taz]

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

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Southern Baptists do not object to makeup. Fundamentalist Baptists don't either. And among the denominations that do (Seventh Day Adventist comes to mind) it isn't because of JEZEBEL lol. It's because they don't believe in vanity, or being intentionally provacative towards the world.

Believe me though....Southern Baptists are aok with makeup and hairspray and colorful modern dresses and all that

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
- 1 Timothy 2, KJV

So?