DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Odysseus on May 31, 2012, 02:28:56 PM
-
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pastor-killed-in-rattlesnake-attack-during-church-service.html
Pastor killed in rattlesnake attack during church service
A Pentecostal pastor famed for handling snakes during church sermons has died after being bitten by a rattlesnake.
Mark “Mack” Wolford, 44, was well-known across the US state of Virginia for his lively church services, which included handling dangerous snakes in a ‘test of faith’. But the pastor died after being bitten by a rattlesnake he had owned for years, mirroring the death of his own father in 1983.
Holding an outdoor service in which serpents where passed around among church members, Wolford was bitten in the thigh by a yellow rattlesnake as he sat on the floor next to it. The service was quickly disbanded as the pastor was taken to family member’s house to recover, but he later died in hospital from poisoning.
Wolford had been bitten on three previous occasions, but did not seek medical attention as he regarded the injury as a test of faith.
“He helped me to understand the faith instead of just documenting it,” photographer and eyewitness Lauren Pond told the Washington Post. “He was one of the most open pastors I’ve ever met. He was a friend and a teacher.”
“I didn’t see the bite, I saw the aftermath” she added.
The group of serpent handlers follow the gospel of Mark, which states: “And these signs will follow
those who believe...they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
I wouldn't wish any harm on the guy but I find it difficult to be sympathetic with someone who fails to learn from his previous experiences and the experiences of others. Hopefully he didn't get to pass on his dumbass genes to any kids.... ::)
-
I believe in a God who wants us to do well, and be well. He loves us, so it makes sense.
I do not believe that that means we're free to do all kinds of stupid shit and He'll just save us from it.
-
I believe in a God who wants us to do well, and be well. He loves us, so it makes sense.
I do not believe that that means we're free to do all kinds of stupid shit and He'll just save us from it.
Basically this.
-
Shoulda asked Derek Roddy!
rumborak
-
Shoulda asked Derek Roddy!
rumborak
WWDRD? :roddy:
-
In terms of pictures of antiquity, this is one of my very favorites. Just wonderful. Linking so it'll show in full size.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Snakehandling.png
Onto the matter at hand. I'm always amused at how people scoff at the scriptural interpretations of others, when their own is no more or less valid. Out of curiosity, what makes their interpretation invalid? The passage actually seems pretty clear, and it's NT, so it isn't something you can just blow off like the OT. Did Mark tack on some fine print that these guys overlooked? Like Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt?
-
Nice pic. Is it coincidental that the one guy just right of center is missing an arm?
-
Nice pic. Is it coincidental that the one guy just right of center is missing an arm?
Nope. :rollin
-
In terms of pictures of antiquity, this is one of my very favorites. Just wonderful. Linking so it'll show in full size.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Snakehandling.png
Onto the matter at hand. I'm always amused at how people scoff at the scriptural interpretations of others, when their own is no more or less valid. Out of curiosity, what makes their interpretation invalid? The passage actually seems pretty clear, and it's NT, so it isn't something you can just blow off like the OT. Did Mark tack on some fine print that these guys overlooked? Like Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt?
I'm with you, but you're going to regret asking that question. Because "the clear meaning of the text" and "that was a part of the old covenant," etc.
And great picture.
-J
-
I'm always amused at how people scoff at the scriptural interpretations of others, when their own is no more or less valid. Out of curiosity, what makes their interpretation invalid? The passage actually seems pretty clear, and it's NT, so it isn't something you can just blow off like the OT. Did Mark tack on some fine print that these guys overlooked? Like Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt?
Fair point. But I still think there's a difference between interpretating a passage in the Bible to say that believers will not be harmed and actually doing things which would normally get you killed as a "test of faith". So you passed the test of faith, congratulations, now you're dead. Isn't there also a passage in the Bible that says not to test the Lord? When Jesus was in the wilderness and Satan showed up, he told Jesus to throw himself off a cliff or something, no biggie, the angels will catch Him. Jesus wouldn't do it because that would be testing or tempting or something.
-
it is important to add, though, that the text in Mark 16 is one of only two in NT that are missing from earliest mss (the other is first section of John 8). more than likely, this was added later by who knows, but based on the earliest mss we have access to it was not written by original authors.
-
Luke 4:12. And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, You shall not test the Lord your God.
OK, fine. How does that supersede they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them, though? Barring a later verse that says "oh yeah, I was just joshing about that whole poison thing in Mark 16," it should still remain valid.
How bout we just cut to the chase here. Are true believers immune to poison or not?
-
I have an idea that maybe the "taking up serpents" thing means "casting out demons".
-
Luke 4:12. And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, You shall not test the Lord your God.
OK, fine. How does that supersede they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them, though? Barring a later verse that says "oh yeah, I was just joshing about that whole poison thing in Mark 16," it should still remain valid.
How bout we just cut to the chase here. Are true believers immune to poison or not?
Not sure whether this is 100% correct, but here's how I see it: Even assuming that passage is supposed to be there (Yesh's point is that that was not included in the original manuscripts, so wether it is truly supposed to be part of Mark is a dubious claim), and leaving aside for a moment the question of whether miraculous signs exist today, this passage does not say that ALL believers will be able to do this. As with any of the miraculous signs that are recorded in the New Testament, not all believers can perform miracles at all, and not all who could perform some types could perform others. So unless God has specifically told ME that I have the miraculous ability to handle poisonous snakes without being harmed, I shouldn't go out looking to do something that is otherwise dangerous just because. Add to that the fact that there is not a single example of anyone in the NT handling snakes as part of worship. The only example that seems to maybe fit what Mark is talking about is where Paul is inadvertently bitten by a snake, and nothing happens to him. (Acts 28:1: Now when they had escaped, they then found out that the island was called Malta. 2 And the natives showed us unusual kindness; for they kindled a fire and made us all welcome, because of the rain that was falling and because of the cold. 3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 4 So when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet justice does not allow to live.” 5 But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.) But, again, it is something that happened while they were sitting around a campfire minding their own business. He wasn't acting stupid and looking for trouble from the snake.
-
Bosk, when Jesus tells his disciples that he is giving them authority over demons, sickness, etc, is that passage for all believers or is it just for those individuals?
-
Bosk, when Jesus tells his disciples that he is giving them authority over demons, sickness, etc, is that passage for all believers or is it just for those individuals?
I read that as only applying to those individuals. I assume you are referring to Matthew 10:1. That passage specifically mentions that he is talking to the twelve. The context of it is that he is sending them out for a specific mission. However, he has other disciples both before and after this event that apparently did NOT have such authority.
-
this passage does not say that ALL believers will be able to do this. As with any of the miraculous signs that are recorded in the New Testament, not all believers can perform miracles at all, and not all who could perform some types could perform others. So unless God has specifically told ME that I have the miraculous ability to handle poisonous snakes without being harmed, I shouldn't go out looking to do something that is otherwise dangerous just because.
Seems to me that this is applicable to pretty much everything in the bible. Isn't the NT is full of promises and assurances that aren't directed to anybody in particular, but are inferred upon all?
And if your interpretation is correct, then it would be hard to fault these people for wanting to find out where they stand. Under that interpretation, it seems to me that they're testing themselves, and not the lord their God.
-
And if your interpretation is correct, then it would be hard to fault these people for wanting to find out where they stand.
Mileage may vary. But to me, no. Believers are never told anywhere in scripture, either by way of command or by way of example, to perform such "tests." Again, there simply is no Biblical precedent for going out and looking for trouble.
-
It's sad that Christians will be the first ones to call this guy out as an idiot when their faith will probably never even come close to what this guy had. R.I.P.
-
Aside from that, I disagree with the thread title. He got bit three times and survived without medical treatment. I'm not so sure those were lessons to be learned insomuch as reinforcement to be gained.
-
I have an idea that maybe the "taking up serpents" thing means "casting out demons".
Why? There is plenty of demon talk in the Gospels. If the author meant "demons" he would have written "demons."
But it doesn't matter, because that part of Mark is not original to the text in any verifiable way. It is a later addition. Not to be trusted as historical or doctrinal.
-
I have an idea that maybe the "taking up serpents" thing means "casting out demons".
Why? There is plenty of demon talk in the Gospels. If the author meant "demons" he would have written "demons."
But it doesn't matter, because that part of Mark is not original to the text in any verifiable way. It is a later addition. Not to be trusted as historical or doctrinal.
That's disputed. It might be a part of the original, it might not be.
-
I have an idea that maybe the "taking up serpents" thing means "casting out demons".
Yeah, but ... daemons. When I hear that word I have to think of goblins and kobolds.
rumborak
-
It's not a far-fetched interpretation. There's demons all over the NT.
-
My personal opinion is, no matter whether there is a God, no matter whether Jesus is the Messiah ... daemons are a ludicrous concept.
rumborak
-
Why? If the spiritual realm is real, than why are demons/daemons/whatever a ludicrous concept?
I don't know how you could believe Jesus is the Messiah and not believe in demons. Jesus himself believed in demons.
-
Jesus was man of his time too, just like the sailors who believed in kobolds on their ships. I'm sure Jesus believed that leeches helped with diseases.
While God is omniscient, Jesus isn't. He mademistakes like the rest of us.
rumborak
-
Yeah but if he was the Messiah and had perfect connection with God, I doubt his teaching would be based on false precepts.
-
A Messiah who apparently had to ask "God, why have you forsaken me?". I think you are heavily downplaying his human side.
Because,let's face it, what sacrifice would it be if Jesus was just a hollow shell that God sent down? Without a solid human element I don't see how it would be a sacrifice at all that could ever redeem humans.
I think you're somewhat stuck between your dislike of ever associating anything flawed with Jesus, and the fact that such a being wouldn't really redeem humans.
rumborak
-
A Messiah who apparently had to ask "God, why have you forsaken me?". I think you are heavily downplaying his human side.
rumborak
To be fair Rumby, I'm pretty sure you're heavily downplaying his Vulcan side.
-
His knowledge was limited. His teaching, though, came from God. So while I see that some of the things he had to say were clearly incorrect (a mustard seed is not the least of all seeds, for example), he's right when it comes to core doctrinal ideas, and the activity of demons is one of those core ideas.
-
That's a lot of detailed things you know about him. Impressive. Can't remember reading any of that in the gospels. I remember reading though how Jesus threw a pretty human hissy fit in the temple.
And if course that "why have you forsaken me" part. Don't exactly get how a part of a Trinity needs to ask the other parts for clarification.
rumborak
-
That's a lot of detailed things you know about him. Impressive.
Come on.
And if course that "why have you forsaken me" part. Don't exactly get how a part of a Trinity needs to ask the other parts for clarification.
I don't really know how that applies to that discussion, but there's lots of interpretations of why Jesus said that. But he probably said it because God did forsake him.
-
You don't see a problem with your theory that Jesus was omniscient if he had to ask that question?
And again, where is the redeeming factor if Jesus' human part was nothing more than mere flesh?
Theologically, the more powerful you make Jesus, the less worth his sacrifice becomes.
rumborak
-
I didn't say that Jesus was omniscient. Sorry if that was implied. I think that he knew all he needed to know.
-
I have to say, this just sounds you're making up parts as they please you. Where do you get this notion from?
rumborak
-
I have an idea that maybe the "taking up serpents" thing means "casting out demons".
Why? There is plenty of demon talk in the Gospels. If the author meant "demons" he would have written "demons."
But it doesn't matter, because that part of Mark is not original to the text in any verifiable way. It is a later addition. Not to be trusted as historical or doctrinal.
That's disputed. It might be a part of the original, it might not be.
It's not really disputed, except perhaps by fundamentalists who start out their examinations with the belief that everything in the Bible is straight from God.
Virtually every major Bible translation brackets off that section of Mark.
Why? If the spiritual realm is real, than why are demons/daemons/whatever a ludicrous concept?
Because if there is an omnipotent God, then how could there exist demons without his consent? And why would an all-loving God allow demons to possess people and cause them harm? This is not the question of why does evil exist in the world, but why would God create such beings in the first place? It makes no sense.
I don't know how you could believe Jesus is the Messiah and not believe in demons. Jesus himself believed in demons.
Let's be as accurate as possible. We don't know what Jesus believed. But the Gospel writers certainly believed in demons. That doesn't make them real.
And frankly, "Messiah" is a loaded term. I believe Jesus was the Son of God, but by virtually every Jewish expectation of who and what the Messiah would be, Jesus doesn't really fit the mold.
-
I'm with yesh....only I don't feel its in dispute at all...but your mileage may vary.
There really is NO evidence that this "scripture" (note the quotations) does belong there. There earliest manuscripts don't have it...ergo, it was added later. The text is spurious.
Moving on.
-
That's a lot of detailed things you know about him. Impressive. Can't remember reading any of that in the gospels. I remember reading though how Jesus threw a pretty human hissy fit in the temple.
And if course that "why have you forsaken me" part. Don't exactly get how a part of a Trinity needs to ask the other parts for clarification.
rumborak
I have heard it explained that he was quoting the 22 Psalm, which begins, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" and is prophetic of his crucifixion.
-
Because if there is an omnipotent God, then how could there exist demons without his consent? And why would an all-loving God allow demons to possess people and cause them harm? This is not the question of why does evil exist in the world, but why would God create such beings in the first place? It makes no sense.
Why do you think they exist without his consent?
And why is the notion of demons possesing people contradictory to an all-loving God? We have ample evidence from the Scriptures that he allows people to suffer to fulfill his purpose, to show his glory, to strenghten the believer's faith, etc. I thought is one of the most evident doctrines from the Scriptures. Otherwise, you would even question why people get ill, or why God created illness.
I have another question, because I'm curious about what is your perspective on this issue. If there are no demons, who was crying out when being cast out of a person, or who recognized the Messiah, or who said that they knew Paul and Christ but didn't know the jewish exorcists? I'm interested in what alternate explanations are to those passages.
-
Aside from that, I disagree with the thread title. He got bit three times and survived without medical treatment. I'm not so sure those were lessons to be learned insomuch as reinforcement to be gained.
But the pastor died after being bitten by a rattlesnake he had owned for years, mirroring the death of his own father in 1983.
This, plus the previous three bites of his own really ought to have been warning enough IMO.
-
If he was bit 3 previous times, and survived without medical treatment, that would likely be reinforcement to continue. In his mind he probably thought the three times he was bit, and survived, confirmed his faith/devotion/divine protection.
-
Then why to need to keep "testing his faith"? Maybe that's rhetorical; I'm not sure.
-
People are always testing themselves. That's human nature.
And maybe his father lacked faith.
-
I guess. But if he truly believed that his faith would save him, if it was strong enough, then he would also believe that he'd die otherwise. I honestly don't see the point of the test if the penalty for failure is death.
-
Maybe he felt it was his mission or calling.
I just see jesus doing a :facepalm: when he read this on yahoo news, and saying, "wow, I need to be more careful in what I say".
-
if there is an omnipotent God, then how could there exist demons without his consent? And why would an all-loving God allow demons to possess people and cause them harm? This is not the question of why does evil exist in the world, but why would God create such beings in the first place? It makes no sense.
I recall Quran defines demons like that. You know, I do not believe in religions but here is what I get.
One of the verse of the Koran says: Demons were created by God to see how people deal with them. If they oppose a rigorous resistance to them they will be awarded but if they fall a prey to temptations and follow their path there will be a penalty.
Though I always think these things are just symbolic to show us the good and the bad here is what Quran says about this matter.
Again, one of the verse says: God and the Devil had a bargain. The Devil said, if I turn people into a badness until the doomsday you will forgive me. If not I accept and bow down in front of people. The Devil portrayed in Quran, he was one of the angels. When God created Adam and Eve and ordered all his angels bow down in front of the people The Devil rejected, that's how the badness started.
-
Seems like a lot of nice allegories and made up theories to justify what you see around you. There's much more reasonable explanations that can explain the "demons" people experience, and they don't require us to take a leap of faith into a religion.
-
Maybe he felt it was his mission or calling.
I just see jesus doing a :facepalm: when he read this on yahoo news, and saying, "wow, I need to be more careful in what I say".
forgive me, Lord, but I :lol
-
I have an idea that maybe the "taking up serpents" thing means "casting out demons".
Why? There is plenty of demon talk in the Gospels. If the author meant "demons" he would have written "demons."
But it doesn't matter, because that part of Mark is not original to the text in any verifiable way. It is a later addition. Not to be trusted as historical or doctrinal.
That's disputed. It might be a part of the original, it might not be.
It's not really disputed, except perhaps by fundamentalists who start out their examinations with the belief that everything in the Bible is straight from God.
Virtually every major Bible translation brackets off that section of Mark.
Those translations never say that Mark's long ending was definitely an addition. They just say "This section is not included in 2 manuscripts" or whatever, and leave it up to you.
Why? If the spiritual realm is real, than why are demons/daemons/whatever a ludicrous concept?
Because if there is an omnipotent God, then how could there exist demons without his consent? And why would an all-loving God allow demons to possess people and cause them harm? This is not the question of why does evil exist in the world, but why would God create such beings in the first place? It makes no sense.
How would anyone know the answer to something like that? We have no idea what demons are or how they came to be. For all we know they could be fallen angels.
I don't know how you could believe Jesus is the Messiah and not believe in demons. Jesus himself believed in demons.
Let's be as accurate as possible. We don't know what Jesus believed. But the Gospel writers certainly believed in demons. That doesn't make them real.
Although we don't have writings directly from Jesus, we have records of what he said. So if he taught about demons, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume he believed in demons, too.
And frankly, "Messiah" is a loaded term. I believe Jesus was the Son of God, but by virtually every Jewish expectation of who and what the Messiah would be, Jesus doesn't really fit the mold.
Your view seems really inconsistent. Okay, so he's the Son of God.
He calls himself the Son of man, referencing Daniel, who is supposed to establish God's kingdom. He quotes the OT and clearly places his trust in the OT. He teaches eternal existence in either heaven or hell. But apparently, he's horribly mistaken and he got it all wrong.
What's so special about being the Son of God, then?
-
I have an idea that maybe the "taking up serpents" thing means "casting out demons".
Why? There is plenty of demon talk in the Gospels. If the author meant "demons" he would have written "demons."
But it doesn't matter, because that part of Mark is not original to the text in any verifiable way. It is a later addition. Not to be trusted as historical or doctrinal.
That's disputed. It might be a part of the original, it might not be.
It's not really disputed, except perhaps by fundamentalists who start out their examinations with the belief that everything in the Bible is straight from God.
Virtually every major Bible translation brackets off that section of Mark.
Those translations never say that Mark's long ending was definitely an addition. They just say "This section is not included in 2 manuscripts" or whatever, and leave it up to you.
Exactly. It is not in the earliest manuscripts that we currently have. But those earlier manuscripts are not originals either. So while the end of Mark 16 (and couple of other passages) may indeed have been later additions, we cannot know that for certain. It may also be true that the original manuscript in fact had that in there, and that it made it into most copies, but for some reason was omitted in the earliest ones that we still have. That seems like the less likely of the two possibilities, but still entirely possible.
However, my general approach wiht that small handful of "questionable" passages is to apply a higher degree of scrutiny to them than I otherwise might, and to not base any major life decisions solely on a passage that might never have been intended to be in the original to begin with. Uniformly, I find that that is not a problem because, as with the passage in question, there is nothing in it that Christians are actually commanded to do.
-
Those translations never say that Mark's long ending was definitely an addition. They just say "This section is not included in 2 manuscripts" or whatever, and leave it up to you.
Well, the longer ending isn't found in the oldest manuscripts. Stylistically, the Greek is not quite the same as the rest of the text of Mark. In fact, there are at least four different endings of Mark found in manuscripts dating to the 5th century or before. All of them come after 16:8. We have testimony from several church fathers that the versions of Mark they knew ended at 16:8. These are the reasons it is bracketed. But by all means, take it at face value if you like.
We have no idea what demons are or how they came to be. For all we know they could be fallen angels.
Or extreme medical/psychological disorders.
Although we don't have writings directly from Jesus, we have records of what he said. So if he taught about demons, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume he believed in demons, too.
I didn't mention "reasonable" for precisely this reason. Things I may find reasonable you may not, and things you find reasonable I may not. That is a very subjective term. That's why I said "accurate."
Your view seems really inconsistent. Okay, so he's the Son of God.
Inconsistent, how? Messiah =/= Son of God. The terms are not interchangeable.
He calls himself the Son of man
Well, that's debatable. But even so, that has nothing to do with terms "Messiah" or "Son of God."
He quotes the OT and clearly places his trust in the OT.
Clearly.
He teaches eternal existence in either heaven or hell. But apparently, he's horribly mistaken and he got it all wrong.
When did I say that Jesus was mistaken or got anything wrong?
What's so special about being the Son of God, then?
What are you talking about?
-
In fact, there are at least four different endings of Mark found in manuscripts dating to the 5th century or before. All of them come after 16:8. We have testimony from several church fathers that the versions of Mark they knew ended at 16:8. These are the reasons it is bracketed. But by all means, take it at face value if you like.
Oh, interesting. I didn't know that. I never really bothered to look that deeply into that particular passage since nothing after 16:8 really affects anything I do anyway (other than, arguably, verse 16, but I don't even need to rely on that verse either because the idea is so clearly found in other passages that are not in doubt). Can you point me toward a source for that? I'm not doubting. I'm just eager to read up on that since, again, I didn't know that.
-
I studied it years ago. Hang on.
Wait, here is a handy page. https://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
Skip down a ways to the info from Bruce Metzger, fairly informative.
-
So what if the end of Mark was a later addition? Why does that automatically have to mean that the section isn't still the word of God or that God just decided to add it later? Especially if it made into the Bible v. Council of Nicaea.
-
Why would God need to add something later?
"Oh shit, I forgot that part. Hang on." *clears throat*
-
Why would God need to add something later?
Why did God have to tell people not to eat unclean food and then tell them later they could eat it? The entire Bible is the history of God adding stuff later.
-
Yeah, but not to the same book. He is a sequel producer, not an editor.
-
Eh, I don't know why you would say that since you most likely don't believe, say, that the book of Isaiah was written by one person. Even fundamentalists will admit that parts of the Pentateuch weren't written by Moses.
-
Eh, I don't know why you would say that since you most likely don't believe, say, that the book of Isaiah was written by one person. Even fundamentalists will admit that parts of the Pentateuch weren't written by Moses.
I believe that Isaiah was written by no less than 3 people, and none of the Pentateuch was written by Moses.
But I don't believe that ANY of it was written by God the way you've been indicating or that most fundamentalists would say.
-
The problem I have is Christians who treat the Bible as God's word deciding which part is and isn't included based on an archaeological discovery. I mean it's pretty clear that the Bible has been edited multiple times, some of which we'll probably never know were not in the original. But that doesn't mean you just disregard the edits.
-
Hef - I'm just saying that it seems that you think that although Jesus was the Son of God, he was wrong in a lot of his teachings (demons, hell, the word of God). That seems inconsistent to me.
-
It's kind of funny how threads begin with the heathens questioning the Christians, and end with the Christians fighting amongst themselves. :lol
-
I too find that highly amusing. There's almost this tenuous cease fire amongst Christians, and all you need to do is throw a stone into the mine field and enjoy the show.
rumborak
-
Hef - I'm just saying that it seems that you think that although Jesus was the Son of God, he was wrong in a lot of his teachings (demons, hell, the word of God). That seems inconsistent to me.
Thinking an author may be wrong about something =/= thinking Jesus may be wrong about something.
And Rathma, the Christians who don't follow the Bible 100 % literally don't view it as "the word of God" like the ones who do. I think it is exactly what it appears to be - the written record of humanity's experience of God, as experienced by two distinct groups - the ancient Israelites and some of the earliest Christians. But definitely written by HUMANS, complete with all of their foibles and faults.
-
I guess. But if he truly believed that his faith would save him, if it was strong enough, then he would also believe that he'd die otherwise. I honestly don't see the point of the test if the penalty for failure is death.
Indeed. If he doesn't die then halleluja he survived, praise be to god. If he Gies then halleluja God wants him home, praise be to God. They've all got their glib soundbites well rehearsed, it's just a question of waiting to see which button to push.
Given that it was his pet snake, I can't help wondering if he forgot to milk the poison ducts this time. I guess he won't be making that mistake again...
-
And Rathma, the Christians who don't follow the Bible 100 % literally don't view it as "the word of God" like the ones who do. I think it is exactly what it appears to be - the written record of humanity's experience of God, as experienced by two distinct groups - the ancient Israelites and some of the earliest Christians. But definitely written by HUMANS, complete with all of their foibles and faults.
A diamond in the rough, sir! :tup
-
And Rathma, the Christians who don't follow the Bible 100 % literally don't view it as "the word of God" like the ones who do. I think it is exactly what it appears to be - the written record of humanity's experience of God, as experienced by two distinct groups - the ancient Israelites and some of the earliest Christians. But definitely written by HUMANS, complete with all of their foibles and faults.
That's a pretty interesting way to look at things. If I was brought up with that type of Christianity I might have found a way to still call myself a Christian.
-
And Rathma, the Christians who don't follow the Bible 100 % literally don't view it as "the word of God" like the ones who do. I think it is exactly what it appears to be - the written record of humanity's experience of God, as experienced by two distinct groups - the ancient Israelites and some of the earliest Christians. But definitely written by HUMANS, complete with all of their foibles and faults.
That's a pretty interesting way to look at things. If I was brought up with that type of Christianity I might have found a way to still call myself a Christian.
It is the only way many people can still call themselves Christian. And the lack of that POV is what will ultimately spell the end of Christianity, IMO.
-
It's sad that Christians will be the first ones to call this guy out as an idiot when their faith will probably never even come close to what this guy had. R.I.P.
We should admire this fellow whose faith was evidently misplaced?
-
That accusation is rather modern though. Historically, "judicium Dei", i.e. asking God to intervene (or not) to establish something was very commonplace, even part of the judicial system ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal ).
rumborak
-
The whole emphasis on the snake thing in the liturgy seems a pretty odd peg to hang your hat on, even by religious standards...