And the gene-pool gets a wee bit cleaner...

What I was referring to was the specific mis-handling of a passage from the Gospel of Mark.

Having lived in the Middle East and encountered much of the same culture that existed in Biblical times - I have no doubt there are other parts of scripture that have been mis-handled, as well.
(I'd easily say that about the prosperity gospel that seems wide-spread in American evangelical circles). However, my comment here was really focused on one very specific passage, and one specific practice - which seems to directly contradict a command not to test the Lord our G-d. (Deut 6:16).

My own reading of the sacred text has changed a lot since I started hanging out with a member of the Syrian Orthodox church - which traces its roots back a tad bit further than western evangelical movement.

bailey bud wrote: What I was referring to was the specific mis-handling of a passage from the Gospel of Mark.

Having lived in the Middle East and encountered much of the same culture that existed in Biblical times - I have no doubt there are other parts of scripture that have been mis-handled, as well.
(I'd easily say that about the prosperity gospel that seems wide-spread in American evangelical circles). However, my comment here was really focused on one very specific passage, and one specific practice - which seems to directly contradict a command not to test the Lord our G-d. (Deut 6:16).

My own reading of the sacred text has changed a lot since I started hanging out with a member of the Syrian Orthodox church - which traces its roots back a tad bit further than western evangelical movement.

Thanks for that clarification.

Homeagain -

As I said, Bailey Bud was NOT speaking of the "mishandling" of the numerous sacred texts that was circulating in the Middle East for the first 300 years after Christ, and why they did or didn't get included in the canon.

As he just reiterated for those who didn't grasp his statement the first time, he was talking about the pastor in particular (and the Holiness movement in general) mishandling of certain passages in the current received canon we know as the Bible.

I have no idea how you extrapolated his statement into the Gnostic Gospels, extra-biblical books, pseudepigrapha and apocryphal works.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Now would you like to expound on the various passages in the Greek scriptures (New Testament) and how they prove or disprove the practice of snake handling, or how this pastor in particular (and the Holiness movement in general) has mishandled these passages?

LadyJazzer wrote: ..... No one else is responsible for his interpretation of such a book but himself.

Personal responsibility? I think we finally found some common ground. Break out the champagne!

LOL wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: ..... No one else is responsible for his interpretation of such a book but himself.

Personal responsibility? I think we found some common ground. Break out the champagne!

Exactly, but LJ's real message is to paint others with the "crazy brush". But she won't do it with her Messiah Obama, even though he also believes in the magic man in the sky.

You are all pathetic. LJ with her genocidal race purity religion and the rest of you with your biblical ingrown follicles. You are all just a pimple on the ass of Ouroboros or perhaps Igbo or Khoisan or...

Am I wrong? Prove it!

BlazerBob wrote: You are all pathetic. LJ with her genocidal race purity religion and the rest of you with your biblical ingrown follicles. You are all just a pimple on the ass of Ouroboros or perhaps Igbo or Khoisan or...

Am I wrong? Prove it!

:clap:

I don't need to "prove" anything. I aaid that "I stand by my statement that the world is a slightly better place when someone that stupid removes himself from it."

"Race Purity", and/or "religion" have nothing to do with it. That is an objectively true statement, and proof is not needed. Nor do I need your agreement on what is a true statement.

You guys want to go off in another direction over "biblical texts" and other irrelevant minutiae?...I could care less.

LadyJazzer wrote: I don't need to "prove" anything. I aaid that "I stand by my statement that the world is a slightly better place when someone that stupid removes himself from it."

"Race Purity", and/or "religion" have nothing to do with it. That is an objectively true statement, and proof is not needed. Nor do I need your agreement on what is a true statement.

You guys want to go off in another direction over "biblical texts" and other irrelevant minutiae?...I could care less.

Haters hate.

Without getting into the political fray -- my daughter and I snickered over the article and mutually wondered: what did the gentleman's followers think after he taunted the snake to kill him -- and it did? Did they conclude he wasn't as "sinless" or "righteous" as he'd claimed? Or did they understand that "God helps those who help themselves" and not people who throw themselves out the window in order to prove that His Hand will come down and save them?

Do advocates of irrational religious practices, in other words, learn anything from a negative experience? Or is it more likely they will just mix up the toxic Kool-Aid with less water next time -- or in this case, pray a little harder or read from another text, in order to survive a future viper? I told Dear Daughter: the latter is more likely. That's what makes it an irrational practice: they are waiting for the Grand Mysteries to change the face of Reality -- instead of appreciating that the Real Mystery is that they are alive, and therefore able to make such foolish choices in the first place.

ColoradoKathy wrote: Without getting into the political fray -- my daughter and I snickered over the article and mutually wondered: what did the gentleman's followers think after he taunted the snake to kill him -- and it did? Did they conclude he wasn't as "sinless" or "righteous" as he'd claimed? Or did they understand that "God helps those who help themselves" and not people who throw themselves out the window in order to prove that His Hand will come down and save them?

Do advocates of irrational religious practices, in other words, learn anything from a negative experience? Or is it more likely they will just mix up the toxic Kool-Aid with less water next time -- or in this case, pray a little harder or read from another text, in order to survive a future viper? I told Dear Daughter: the latter is more likely. That's what makes it an irrational practice: they are waiting for the Grand Mysteries to change the face of Reality -- instead of appreciating that the Real Mystery is that they are alive, and therefore able to make such foolish choices in the first place.

Good points there Kathy... but without suckers, there would be no snake oil salesmen, or snake handling preachers, or promise making politicians. It's the suckers that give all these people false power and grand wisedom, which they eventually start to believe they have.