Serpent Handling

[4x4toy]

It's a mockery
And it is in line to what the false prophets of Baal did

To those who know GOD, it is a misrepresentation of GOD

I understand where you're coming from but I will not speak bad about them
Mark 16:16-19

 

[Foxfyre]

It's a mockery
And it is in line to what the false prophets of Baal did

To those who know GOD, it is a misrepresentation of GOD

IMO there is a huge difference between 'laying a fleece' or asking God for confirmation if you are on the right track and in deliberately doing something dangerous as an exhibition of God's power.

I don't know that it is mocking God when the people are really sincere, but I do believe it could be deemed sufficiently dangerous to make it illegal in the eyes of the law.

 

[miknik5]

I understand where you're coming from but I will not speak bad about them
Mark 16:16-19

Mark 16:20
And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen


So the LORD is working with them, confirming the WORD (which should be preached) with signs?

 

[miknik5]

Who are they preaching THE GOSPEL to as they handle snakes?

Those who have heard and believed?

Or those who haven't heard and believed?

And why are they handling snakes as they preach THE GOSPEL?

Who are they preaching to?

Is it their faith that they are testing. And why are they testimg their faith?

 

[Greg Merrill]

Only one person so far has qualified these serpents as venomous. I have had a number of snakes as pets, all non-venomous. I have never been bitten once, though I had one snake that I found some boys abusing, and asked if I could have it. It would strike at the glass of the aquarium unlike all the other snakes I had. Sorry for getting off the topic. Mark 16:18 says "They (Christians in the first century) shall take up serpents..." A fulfillment of that was Paul in Ac 28:3 "And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks...there came a viper...and fastened on his hand." V. 5 says he shook off the beast and felt no harm. Drinking poison was also a sign of one of these first believers, Mk 16:18. In both cases, these were not to be done on purpose, testing God, or like Satan's suggestion for Jesus to cast himself off the temple, but if they happened God could use them to show his protection upon His representatives as credentials that they were really His messengers. Once the New Testament was completed, it became the credentials, the authority for which God's messengers were to turn to, not these signs of miracles. 1Co 13:10.

 

[miknik5]

Only one person so far has qualified these serpents as venomous. I have had a number of snakes as pets, all non-venomous. I have never been bitten once, though I had one snake that I found some boys abusing, and asked if I could have it. It would strike at the glass of the aquarium unlike all the other snakes I had. Sorry for getting off the topic. Mark 16:18 says "They (Christians in the first century) shall take up serpents..." A fulfillment of that was Paul in Ac 28:3 "And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks...there came a vip...and fastened on his hand." V. 5 says he shook off the beast and felt no harm. Drinking poison was also a sign of one of these first believers, Mk 16:18. In both cases, these were not to be done on purpose, testing God, or like Satan's suggestion for Jesus to cast himself off the temple, but if they happened God could use them to show his protection upon His representatives as credentials that they were really His messengers. Once the New Testament was completed, it became the credentials, the authority for which God's messengers were to turn to, not these signs of miracles. 1Co 13:10.

Can you say your last sentence again? I'm not understanding

 

[Greg Merrill]

Can you say your last sentence again? I'm not understanding

Rewording it: Before the N.T. was completed, the messengers of God were given the ability to perform miracles so that people would believe there message was truly from God. Once the N.T. was completed, it itself was the authority to believe, and God's messengers were to share it's message. People might ask the messenger "How do I know what your saying is from God?" The messenger would then show it to them in Scripture.

 

[archer75]

This is a slippery slope. If laws are passed to prevent this kind of thing in a church, a secular world could start passing laws against baptism, someone could drown, etc., etc.

No. No one questions baptism on that basis. But handling poisonous snakes can get people killed. That's why it's done - to show off.

 

[tstor]

If a popular pastor told people to drink the Koolade and their faith would protect them from the poison in it, I think that would be deliberate endangerment of people who you have no idea whether they have such faith. I am pretty sure that would be an illegal act.

Probably the same sort of principle would be involved re poisonous snakes. An expert snake handler would not be prohibited from performing for a crowd. But a demonstration that would likely encourage people to take that risk or tell them they too could do this without any special training, I don't know. I just don't think that would be allowed.

Well, I gather that people voluntarily choose to handle the serpents. That seems to be perfectly fine with me. I see nothing unlawful in people endangering their own lives.

 

[Nick714]

i would assume satanic churches do things with snakes more than christian churches. i wonder what caused the law to arise though. maby someone got bit

 

[miknik5]

Rewording it: Before the N.T. was completed, the messengers of God were given the ability to perform miracles so that people would believe there message was truly from God. Once the N.T. was completed, it itself was the authority to believe, and God's messengers were to share it's message. People might ask the messenger "How do I know what your saying is from God?" The messenger would then show it to them in Scripture.

Thank you

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I gather that people voluntarily choose to handle the serpents. That seems to be perfectly fine with me. I see nothing unlawful in people endangering their own lives.

But are they KNOWINGLY endangering their own lives when they are being told that they can handle poisonous snakes without harm because God will protect them?

 

[tstor]

But are they KNOWINGLY endangering their own lives when they are being told that they can handle poisonous snakes without harm because God will protect them?

Of course they are knowingly doing it. Just because they believe they are divinely protected does not change anything.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course they are knowingly doing it. Just because they believe they are divinely protected does not change anything.

I think it does. To tell them there is no danger when there obviously is danger is not okay.

 

[Widlast]

I assume that there are probably no serpent-handling Christians on this forum, as I have never even met one personally despite living in one of the few states they are active in. But I was reading that it is illegal in the Appalachian states to actually perform serpent handling in churches. While I see no significance in serpent handling and find it to be a bit excessive, I see no reason for it to be illegal. Do you believe it should be illegal? Is this not a form of religious persecution?

"serpent handling", as it is practiced by certain Protestant denominations is not only stupid, but anti-Biblical. "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test." You will note that the mortality rate amongst "snake handling" pastors is rather high. If God was with them, they wouldn't be dropping dead from Rattle Snake bites.

 

[tstor]

"serpent handling", as it is practiced by certain Protestant denominations is not only stupid, but anti-Biblical. "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test." You will note that the mortality rate amongst "snake handling" pastors is rather high. If God was with them, they wouldn't be dropping dead from Rattle Snake bites.

I agree, but my primary purpose in this thread is whether or not it should be illegal to have churches engage in serpent handling.

 

[jargew]

From a purely legal perspective, I think that if a person is 18 or older and they want to play with a snake, let them.
I don't think it's more dangerous, or outrageous, than letting them play with a gun or jump out of a plane with a parachute.

 

[miknik5]

From a purely legal perspective, I think that if a person is 18 or older and they want to play with a snake, let them.
I don't think it's more dangerous, or outrageous, than letting them play with a gun or jump out of a plane with a parachute.

I wouldn't do any of these three things. However, I think Jumping out of a plane with a parachute is different from playing with guns or deadly snakes

 

[miknik5]

And I certainly would deter anyone from doing something that is dangerous

 

[grandvizier1006]

I read a book about these people. It's called Salvation on Sand Mountain, if you're interested. It was a very interesting book but the practitioners of this snake handling stuff are, quite frankly, uneducated. They're a good testament as to why Christians should have some degree of rationality in their faith and not be overly superstitious (some in the group believe that you cannot be true saved unless you handle a snake and aren't bitten, or have revoked your salvation if you seek medical treatment for a snake bite).

Another thing to point out is that the verse they use is not in the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. They're basing their main set of beliefs on a single, dubious passage that may have been an early addition to Mark's Gospel.