News Article: Reality show snake-handling preacher dies -- of snakebite

[CrimsonSEC]

My grandfather was bitten by a pigmy rattler when he was 11 years old (in 1905). He said the bite was bad enough but the cure was what almost killed him. They put him in a bed, elevated his foot, and fed him whiskey for two days. Sounds like I'm lucky to be here.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Doesn't say much for the inerrant word of god, the Bible does it? What all else is optional? Back then snakes not only bit, they talked!!!

This is the fallacy that leads to those KJV Onlyists - if we have ANY uncertainty then ALL certainty is therefore lost. But that isn't correct. Furthermore, that this is added later has been known almost since it was added.

I still hold to inerrancy but this intrusion doesn't affect that.

 

[uafan4life]

This is the fallacy that leads to those KJV Onlyists - if we have ANY uncertainty then ALL certainty is therefore lost. But that isn't correct. Furthermore, that this is added later has been known almost since it was added.

I still hold to inerrancy but this intrusion doesn't affect that.

This is something that is hard for a lot of people to understand and causes them to either completely question or blindly, completely hold to the historicity and [f]actuality ( my made-up word ) of the Bible - especially in a very literal sense.


The simple truth is that, to most of the people who wrote the Bible and to those to whom most of it was actually written, the truth of the story or the recounting of the story did not lie in properly, completely, and sequentially conveying the facts of the story but rather in in properly conveying the meaning or point of the story.

Genealogies are a great example. To us, if a genealogy says that Aaron was 38 years old when he begat Ephraim, Ephraim was 35 years old when he begat David, David was 45 years old when he begat Seth, and that Seth was 42 years old when he begat Benjamin then we will conclude a couple of "facts" from that genealogy:
- There are five generations represented from Aaron to Benjamin, and
- There are 160 years from Aaron's birth to Benjamin's birth.

However, to the ancient Jew that genealogy could have represented five or six - or perhaps 10 or even 50 - generations and the time from Aaron's birth to Benjamin's birth could have been anywhere from 160 years to 260 years or even 2060 years.

In fact, it was very common to leave people out entirely in Jewish genealogies. If someone had disgraced their family, they would often be left out. If a genealogy was to span a significant amount of time then many people would often be left out - leaving only the "highlights", if you will - of the family line. A man's age at "begatting" time in a genealogy would have been his age when he gave birth to his firstborn (more on that in a second), whether the name that followed was his firstborn son or his grandson or his great, great, great grandson. The point of Jewish genealogies wasn't intended to accurately represent a specific number of generations or even a specific number of years - especially when those years are represented with large, round numbers such as 40, 100, 400, 1000, 4000, etc. or with important numbers like 6, 7, 12, 70, 77, 120, 666, 777, etc. Instead, the point of Jewish genealogies was simply to establish a family heritage, in order to point back to certain aspects or individuals in a person's lineage.

Even something as seemingly clear as describing a person's firstborn child isn't necessarily clear at all. If a man begat his "firstborn" at age 46 then it was possible that he actually bore other children prior to age 46 - especially if those children were female but sometimes even if they were male. If a man's first two children were female and last four children were male then the first son born would be listed as the "firstborn" - since he is the firstborn son and carries the applicable family heritage and inheritance - and the two older daughters would usually be listed either following the eldest son or after all of the sons.

This doesn't make much sense to us, using "Western" logic, but it did to them.

Another pitfall lies in the assumption of a sequential retelling of events. If a story says that John got up this morning, then prepared some coffee and eggs, then ate breakfast, then read the newspaper, and then went to the bathroom then we take that as necessarily a sequential retelling of those events. To the ancient Jew, the order of events doesn't have to actually correlate with their occurrence in time in order for it to be a "factual" retelling. If rearranging the order of the events in the retelling of the story better conveys the point of the story - or simply makes for better reading - then they would rearrange the order of the events.

Oh, and footnotes for these types of things weren't required - so it's very difficult, if not impossible, to tell for certain whether a given passage in the Bible can truly be taken "literally" in regards to the passage of time or the order of events.

The 77 generations (or 4000 years) from Adam to Jesus represented in the Bible could have been 77 generations or it could have been 842 generations covering 42,000 years and it would have made no factual difference to the average Jew to whom the Gospel of Luke was written. Actually, by the obvious use of the number 77, most Jews reading it would have most likely assumed that the number was NOT a literal number - since the number 77 means perfect upon perfect, or complete upon complete. This correlates very well with Galatians 4:4, which states that Jesus was born "at the fullness of time" - or at the completed time or even the perfect time.

The vast majority of the Bible, when it was written, was never intended to be taken literally - not as we think of literally, anyway.

And then you've got the whole thing where people want to treat the Bible - and New Testament, especially - as a How-To book when most of it was written telling the people what they were doing wrong, not what they were doing right.

 

[seebell]

[h=1]Deadly Snake That Killed Jamie Coots Will Return To Church On Sunday[/h]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/deadly-snake-jamie-coots_n_4818460.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
Coots' son Cody told TMZ that "the family still believes in God's protective power against snake venom -- despite his father's death." Cody will take over as pastor at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name church in Middlesboro, Ky., in the wake of his dad's passing.

I guess the snake needs religion too!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

[h=1]Deadly Snake That Killed Jamie Coots Will Return To Church On Sunday[/h]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/deadly-snake-jamie-coots_n_4818460.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
Coots' son Cody told TMZ that "the family still believes in God's protective power against snake venom -- despite his father's death." Cody will take over as pastor at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name church in Middlesboro, Ky., in the wake of his dad's passing.

I guess the snake needs religion too!

Not even news.

There are millions of schmucks who still think the President is an honest guy after him saying they could keep their health insurance - millions who would support the schmuck for a third term.

So this doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[seebell]

Not even news.

There are millions of schmucks who still think the President is an honest guy after him saying they could keep their health insurance - millions who would support the schmuck for a third term.

So this doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm confused. Are smucks a type of snake handling sect?

 

[Bamaro]

[h=1]Deadly Snake That Killed Jamie Coots Will Return To Church On Sunday[/h]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/deadly-snake-jamie-coots_n_4818460.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
Coots' son Cody told TMZ that "the family still believes in God's protective power against snake venom -- despite his father's death." Cody will take over as pastor at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name church in Middlesboro, Ky., in the wake of his dad's passing.

I guess the snake needs religion too!

I guess its true that you cant fix stupid.

 

[MOAN]

This is the fallacy that leads to those KJV Onlyists - if we have ANY uncertainty then ALL certainty is therefore lost. But that isn't correct. Furthermore, that this is added later has been known almost since it was added.

I still hold to inerrancy but this intrusion doesn't affect that.

If those scriptures added on to the end of Mark were the only uncertainty in the Bible I would concur as to the possible inerrancy of the Bible, but that is just one of many uncertainties. Like who wrote the Torah? Moses? Or was it J,E,P,X,Y and Z? Who wrote the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? The scriptures do not say. Just as with the Torah, we have the traditions of who wrote them, but scholars can't agree on who actually did because they do not know in reality.

How about the letters attributed to Paul? Did he write them all or are some or several of them forged in his name written years after he died? Scholars can't agree on that either. Were the letters Paul wrote written before the four gospels? Was 1st Thessalonians the first book of the Bible that was written, even before the four gospels? Who the heck knows, although it may be the oldest surviving artifact of the Bible in existence, older than any artifact of the four gospels.

When were the books of the Torah written themselves? Were camels domesticated in Israel at the time the patriarchs were presumed to have lived around 2000 BC? Or a thousand years later as archeologist studying ancient camel bones in Israel? I could go on with the uncertainties as I know you understand.

What it boils down to is believers, like yourself, can explain away the questions to your satisfaction just as the unbelievers can explain to their satisfaction of the Bibles false historicity. What does any of this prove in the end? If you are asking me, I say it proves uncertainty not inerrancy.

In the end does it matter? I still do not believe in a talking snake or god inserting himself into the belly of a young Jewish girl. It is widely known long before the New Testament was ever thought of, that myths of gods impregnating human women were widespread, and when they died they went to heaven or whatever.

But to a true believer, those things actually happened! Even a man being swallowed by a huge fish for three days and surviving after being spit back up! So why can't those scriptures added at the end of Mark be the inerrant words of god if those others are?

 

[MOAN]

This is something that is hard for a lot of people to understand and causes them to either completely question or blindly, completely hold to the historicity and [f]actuality ( my made-up word ) of the Bible - especially in a very literal sense.


The simple truth is that, to most of the people who wrote the Bible and to those to whom most of it was actually written, the truth of the story or the recounting of the story did not lie in properly, completely, and sequentially conveying the facts of the story but rather in in properly conveying the meaning or point of the story.

Genealogies are a great example. To us, if a genealogy says that Aaron was 38 years old when he begat Ephraim, Ephraim was 35 years old when he begat David, David was 45 years old when he begat Seth, and that Seth was 42 years old when he begat Benjamin then we will conclude a couple of "facts" from that genealogy:
- There are five generations represented from Aaron to Benjamin, and
- There are 160 years from Aaron's birth to Benjamin's birth.

However, to the ancient Jew that genealogy could have represented five or six - or perhaps 10 or even 50 - generations and the time from Aaron's birth to Benjamin's birth could have been anywhere from 160 years to 260 years or even 2060 years.

In fact, it was very common to leave people out entirely in Jewish genealogies. If someone had disgraced their family, they would often be left out. If a genealogy was to span a significant amount of time then many people would often be left out - leaving only the "highlights", if you will - of the family line. A man's age at "begatting" time in a genealogy would have been his age when he gave birth to his firstborn (more on that in a second), whether the name that followed was his firstborn son or his grandson or his great, great, great grandson. The point of Jewish genealogies wasn't intended to accurately represent a specific number of generations or even a specific number of years - especially when those years are represented with large, round numbers such as 40, 100, 400, 1000, 4000, etc. or with important numbers like 6, 7, 12, 70, 77, 120, 666, 777, etc. Instead, the point of Jewish genealogies was simply to establish a family heritage, in order to point back to certain aspects or individuals in a person's lineage.

Even something as seemingly clear as describing a person's firstborn child isn't necessarily clear at all. If a man begat his "firstborn" at age 46 then it was possible that he actually bore other children prior to age 46 - especially if those children were female but sometimes even if they were male. If a man's first two children were female and last four children were male then the first son born would be listed as the "firstborn" - since he is the firstborn son and carries the applicable family heritage and inheritance - and the two older daughters would usually be listed either following the eldest son or after all of the sons.

This doesn't make much sense to us, using "Western" logic, but it did to them.

Another pitfall lies in the assumption of a sequential retelling of events. If a story says that John got up this morning, then prepared some coffee and eggs, then ate breakfast, then read the newspaper, and then went to the bathroom then we take that as necessarily a sequential retelling of those events. To the ancient Jew, the order of events doesn't have to actually correlate with their occurrence in time in order for it to be a "factual" retelling. If rearranging the order of the events in the retelling of the story better conveys the point of the story - or simply makes for better reading - then they would rearrange the order of the events.

Oh, and footnotes for these types of things weren't required - so it's very difficult, if not impossible, to tell for certain whether a given passage in the Bible can truly be taken "literally" in regards to the passage of time or the order of events.

The 77 generations (or 4000 years) from Adam to Jesus represented in the Bible could have been 77 generations or it could have been 842 generations covering 42,000 years and it would have made no factual difference to the average Jew to whom the Gospel of Luke was written. Actually, by the obvious use of the number 77, most Jews reading it would have most likely assumed that the number was NOT a literal number - since the number 77 means perfect upon perfect, or complete upon complete. This correlates very well with Galatians 4:4, which states that Jesus was born "at the fullness of time" - or at the completed time or even the perfect time.

The vast majority of the Bible, when it was written, was never intended to be taken literally - not as we think of literally, anyway.

And then you've got the whole thing where people want to treat the Bible - and New Testament, especially - as a How-To book when most of it was written telling the people what they were doing wrong, not what they were doing right.

So let me see if I understand your explanation. We do not have a damn clue what the Bible really means in this day and time? I can accept that!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

If those scriptures added on to the end of Mark were the only uncertainty in the Bible I would concur as to the possible inerrancy of the Bible, but that is just one of many uncertainties. Like who wrote the Torah? Moses? Or was it J,E,P,X,Y and Z?

If you actually study the JEDP hypothesis, it will amaze you how uh....fundamentalistic the "thinking" of so-called "real scholars" actually is. Start with a series of asinine assumptions (if an author says Lord, that's one author, but if he says God that's another - because, after all, nobody in all of human history has ever said the words "Lord" and "God" in the same sentence - I'm deadly serious, that's the argument)

Who wrote the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Does it actually make ANY difference at all? Critical scholarship assumes that only an idiot would actually believe those four wrote those books. Of course, this ASSUMES the critic would actually know a writing of one of those four if he saw it, too. And the first three of those authors are three of the most unlikely authors not named Judas Iscariot in the NT. (Seriously - why would you slap Mark's name on a gospel when you have Peter and Jesus you could say wrote it?)

The scriptures do not say.

On the other hand, Paul's epistles DO have his name. Keep that in mind, it's going to be important in just a moment.

Just as with the Torah, we have the traditions of who wrote them, but scholars can't agree on who actually did because they do not know in reality.

Most of those scholars's "immortality" is based upon saying something unique that gets printed, too. That little detail always gets ignored.

How about the letters attributed to Paul?

See what you did there? First, you complain the gospels don't list the author's name. But then when the author's name is there, you say nobody knows. Quite frankly, you keep changing the rules in the middle of the game. This is why I don't take "critical scholarship" seriously when it has no consistency.

What's amazing is this: backwater fundamentalists are ABSOLUTELY SURE the four gospels were written by the names on them; liberal higher criticism is ABSOLUTELY SURE they were not. Both have the same degree of certainty and the same dogmatism - and neither has a leg to stand on other than assumption. But let a guy have initials after his name and suddenly his opinion counts - even if he has no grounds for that opinion other than assumption.

Did he write them all or are some or several of them forged in his name written years after he died?

Do you have any reason to suspect this happened? I think that's a fair question, too.

Scholars can't agree on that either. Were the letters Paul wrote written before the four gospels?

Almost certainly. Can you please explain what difference it actually makes?

Was 1st Thessalonians the first book of the Bible that was written, even before the four gospels? Who the heck knows, although it may be the oldest surviving artifact of the Bible in existence, older than any artifact of the four gospels.

No, James was probably written first. Again, I don't see what difference this makes substantively.

When were the books of the Torah written themselves? Were camels domesticated in Israel at the time the patriarchs were presumed to have lived around 2000 BC? Or a thousand years later as archeologist studying ancient camel bones in Israel? I could go on with the uncertainties as I know you understand.

So because there is uncertainty about some things all certain about anything is therefore lost? (Most of these questions/statements border on the absurd).

What it boils down to is believers, like yourself, can explain away the questions to your satisfaction just as the unbelievers can explain to their satisfaction of the Bibles false historicity.

Except that virtually everything you said here is meaningless in the bigger picture.

Suppose - solely for the sake of argument - that the Bible was perfect/inerrant/whatever to your satisfaction. You knew all the authors and who wrote what and there were no contradictions.


Do you seriously think it would make any difference to you? It really wouldn't. You would just dismiss it as a conspiratorial, cleaned up, edited, and probably politically controlled document. We already have this in biblical criticism. If a story is in less than all four gospels, it is considered untrue. And if a story is in all four gospels, it is considered a conspiracy (the Judas betrayal is an anti-Semitic conspiracy of the first century, which makes perfect sense to appeal to the readers since Jesus Himself was Jewish). The assumption PRECEDES any investigation. You know - the same thing these scholars criticize.

What does any of this prove in the end? If you are asking me, I say it proves uncertainty not inerrancy.

But that uncertainty exists is not really the question.

In the end does it matter? I still do not believe in a talking snake

Fine...

or god inserting himself into the belly of a young Jewish girl.

You're sort of confusing Hinduism with Christianity here. Nothing proves an argument is strong like a good straw man!!!

It is widely known long before the New Testament was ever thought of, that myths of gods impregnating human women were widespread, and when they died they went to heaven or whatever.

Which is not what happened and not what is said happened - but hey, fundamentalism comes in MANY forms. And yes, I'm familiar with Perseus, Heracles, and Romulus. Similar but not the same thing.

But to a true believer, those things actually happened! Even a man being swallowed by a huge fish for three days and surviving after being spit back up! So why can't those scriptures added at the end of Mark be the inerrant words of god if those others are?

But I never said they weren't. I said they were a later intrusion.

I offered no interpretation of it, nor did I simply dismiss it. It never ceases to amaze me the solid black and white thinking that goes on with some things that may be shades of gray. However - let's ASSUME for the sake of argument that the last 12 verses of Mark are inspired and authentic.

Isn't a blood transfusion reaction basically the same as being poisoned? What about a drug overdose (whether by nurse or self-induced, prescribed or illicit)? These are forms of poisoning that have killed Christians for years just as they kill anyone else. Thus, a universal application won't work. Also - none of the epistles mention this as part of the church service (note particularly 1 Cor 11-15 for the basic worship service). The most probable correct interpretation? That it was a divine enablement given solely to the apostles for purpose of confirming the message of the gospel (16:20). For example, Paul was bitten by a snake and expected to lie - and lived (Acts 28).

God is not obligated to save people from the foolishness of their own decisions. Stick it in a hooker and get AIDS? Oh well. Kill someone? Go to jail. Get addicted to drugs? You may die.

Or pick up a poisonous snake? Don't be surprised when it acts like a snake.

 

[TrampLineman]

I'm not sure where I'm gonna spend the Afterlife. But the deciding factor ain't gonna be from the result of a snake bite. :frown:

At least not from one I'm handling, it might happen by me walking through the woods or something but it dang sure wont be from one in my own hand!

My old man would watch this show and I'd catch a few with him, those folks were/are flat out CRAZY! They were risking their freedom just to get the dang snakes, then was just flat out handling poisonous snakes!! That is flat out STUPID! I never paid much attention to their deal with the serpents, but wouldn't ANY snake do?

 

[MOAN]

If you actually study the JEDP hypothesis, it will amaze you how uh....fundamentalistic the "thinking" of so-called "real scholars" actually is. Start with a series of asinine assumptions (if an author says Lord, that's one author, but if he says God that's another - because, after all, nobody in all of human history has ever said the words "Lord" and "God" in the same sentence - I'm deadly serious, that's the argument)




Does it actually make ANY difference at all? Critical scholarship assumes that only an idiot would actually believe those four wrote those books. Of course, this ASSUMES the critic would actually know a writing of one of those four if he saw it, too. And the first three of those authors are three of the most unlikely authors not named Judas Iscariot in the NT. (Seriously - why would you slap Mark's name on a gospel when you have Peter and Jesus you could say wrote it?)




On the other hand, Paul's epistles DO have his name. Keep that in mind, it's going to be important in just a moment.



Most of those scholars's "immortality" is based upon saying something unique that gets printed, too. That little detail always gets ignored.



See what you did there? First, you complain the gospels don't list the author's name. But then when the author's name is there, you say nobody knows. Quite frankly, you keep changing the rules in the middle of the game. This is why I don't take "critical scholarship" seriously when it has no consistency.

What's amazing is this: backwater fundamentalists are ABSOLUTELY SURE the four gospels were written by the names on them; liberal higher criticism is ABSOLUTELY SURE they were not. Both have the same degree of certainty and the same dogmatism - and neither has a leg to stand on other than assumption. But let a guy have initials after his name and suddenly his opinion counts - even if he has no grounds for that opinion other than assumption.





Do you have any reason to suspect this happened? I think that's a fair question, too.




Almost certainly. Can you please explain what difference it actually makes?



No, James was probably written first. Again, I don't see what difference this makes substantively.



So because there is uncertainty about some things all certain about anything is therefore lost? (Most of these questions/statements border on the absurd).



Except that virtually everything you said here is meaningless in the bigger picture.

Suppose - solely for the sake of argument - that the Bible was perfect/inerrant/whatever to your satisfaction. You knew all the authors and who wrote what and there were no contradictions.


Do you seriously think it would make any difference to you? It really wouldn't. You would just dismiss it as a conspiratorial, cleaned up, edited, and probably politically controlled document. We already have this in biblical criticism. If a story is in less than all four gospels, it is considered untrue. And if a story is in all four gospels, it is considered a conspiracy (the Judas betrayal is an anti-Semitic conspiracy of the first century, which makes perfect sense to appeal to the readers since Jesus Himself was Jewish). The assumption PRECEDES any investigation. You know - the same thing these scholars criticize.




But that uncertainty exists is not really the question.



Fine...




You're sort of confusing Hinduism with Christianity here. Nothing proves an argument is strong like a good straw man!!!



Which is not what happened and not what is said happened - but hey, fundamentalism comes in MANY forms. And yes, I'm familiar with Perseus, Heracles, and Romulus. Similar but not the same thing.



But I never said they weren't. I said they were a later intrusion.

I offered no interpretation of it, nor did I simply dismiss it. It never ceases to amaze me the solid black and white thinking that goes on with some things that may be shades of gray. However - let's ASSUME for the sake of argument that the last 12 verses of Mark are inspired and authentic.

Isn't a blood transfusion reaction basically the same as being poisoned? What about a drug overdose (whether by nurse or self-induced, prescribed or illicit)? These are forms of poisoning that have killed Christians for years just as they kill anyone else. Thus, a universal application won't work. Also - none of the epistles mention this as part of the church service (note particularly 1 Cor 11-15 for the basic worship service). The most probable correct interpretation? That it was a divine enablement given solely to the apostles for purpose of confirming the message of the gospel (16:20). For example, Paul was bitten by a snake and expected to lie - and lived (Acts 28).

God is not obligated to save people from the foolishness of their own decisions. Stick it in a hooker and get AIDS? Oh well. Kill someone? Go to jail. Get addicted to drugs? You may die.

Or pick up a poisonous snake? Don't be surprised when it acts like a snake.

I have no dog in this fight and you just proved my point. The believer has an answer for everything and an unbeliever does as well. (I would love to see a debate between you and Bart Erhman, would pay even, and not to see you get grilled, would actually be pulling for you! ) What would someone who had never heard of Jesus, Christianity, the Bible, think if they were told this for the first time as an adult? Why would anyone throw away their beliefs they grew up with for Christianity if they had never heard of it before? Some do, and if you entice them with goodies it helps!

Why would someone who had been born and raised a Christian all of a sudden throw away everything they had believed and become an Atheist? Again some do. What makes one Christian believer better than another? How many Christian denominations are there? Are they all correct? And what even makes the Christian religion the only true religion of the almighty God? More uncertainty if you ask me.

You have a very eloquent answer to every question, but how do you truly know? Are you saying there is no uncertainty at all? Maybe I am misunderstanding your comments, very possible. Maybe we all are misunderstanding what was written millennium ago? Inerrancy? What really is inerrancy?

I believe in God. Many of them in fact and maybe one of them is greater than all the rest, who really knows? I have been contacted telepathically by one of them just as most Christian believers believe, Moses, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elijah, John, Paul, Joseph, and so many more have that is written about in the Bible thousands of years ago. But do you believe me? I am sure you got a giggle out of reading what I wrote about my contact, but what does it prove? Will you take the word of someone living today as you do someone who lived thousands of years ago? And what does that prove?

Is there any possibility that a religion born thousands of years ago could be wrong? Remember there are older, much older religions than the Christian religion, that in their day and time was as revered to their believers as the Christian religion is today by its believers. But what if it turns out that Christianity is just another ancient mythical religion like all those others in antiquity?

That snake handling preacher that died from being bit during his Christian religious ceremony is just as righteous as you or any other Christian believer. He had as much faith in Jesus, if not more, than any other Christian in this world. Was that faith misguided, probably, but that is nothing new for Christians is it? The apostle Paul sure had his hands full admonishing and explaining the faith to his congregations, thus all the letters, and you know fully well the atrocities of Christians in past times and even today. What does any of that prove though?

I am not a Christian, nor am I an Atheist. I am not pulling for one side or the other. I think that cat was crazy handling snakes but from his perception he thought he was living for the Lord and put his faith in his beliefs. You are doing just the same yourself. Your perception is different from his as well as mine that is all.

I will say I believe yours and his perceptions will one day, maybe a hundred or even a thousand years from now, will become as we perceive Greek mythology today. When you recall the original language, (as far as anyone knows or that I know), of the New Testament book of the Bible was written in Greek, you will no doubt see a parallel.

It would certainly help my perception of the Bible and the Christian religion if what was written in it were found to be factual through archaeology, science, no contradicting scriptures and the same universal truth held by all believers. To me that is something an almighty God could make a reality. Then the choice for us would be if we want to worship God or not. There would still be a choice for humans, as there would still be the choice of being gay, lesbian, drunkards, smokers, thieves, murderers, you name it. There would still be the repentance reward for those who changed their ways and come to the Lord. But it sure would take out a lot of uncertainty for the world if God had made it easier to know for sure wouldn't it? Why all the confusion?

I mean Adam and Eve only had two choices didn't they? Obey God by not eating from a certain tree or disobey him by eating from it. Does that seem fair to you for things to be so simplistic for those two perfectly created humans compared to the uncertain mess us imperfect humans are born in to? I am sure it does as you are a believer, but to a non believer it is a crock!

Your perception is not wrong, neither is mine or that snake handlers. Its just our perception. And that is why we got nearly 8 billion loonies running around on this planet. Except for me! Love You Bro!!!

 

[ValuJet]

[h=1]Deadly Snake That Killed Jamie Coots Will Return To Church On Sunday[/h]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/deadly-snake-jamie-coots_n_4818460.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
Coots' son Cody told TMZ that "the family still believes in God's protective power against snake venom -- despite his father's death." Cody will take over as pastor at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name church in Middlesboro, Ky., in the wake of his dad's passing.

I guess the snake needs religion too!

How long does it take a poisonous snake to rejuvenate its juice after it delivers a lethal bite to a preacher?

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

How long does it take a poisonous snake to rejuvenate its juice after it delivers a lethal bite to a preacher?

That snake should be in the fryer.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

[h=1]Deadly Snake That Killed Jamie Coots Will Return To Church On Sunday[/h]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/deadly-snake-jamie-coots_n_4818460.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
Coots' son Cody told TMZ that "the family still believes in God's protective power against snake venom -- despite his father's death." Cody will take over as pastor at the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name church in Middlesboro, Ky., in the wake of his dad's passing.

I guess the snake needs religion too!

Hey, I didn't see the one thing there (I was just glancing at the people still believing in God or whatever. Didn't realize the title said the snake will be back at church - that IS kinda funny.

So the snake will have a better church attendance record than the pastor?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I have no dog in this fight and you just proved my point. The believer has an answer for everything and an unbeliever does as well. (I would love to see a debate between you and Bart Erhman, would pay even, and not to see you get grilled, would actually be pulling for you! ) What would someone who had never heard of Jesus, Christianity, the Bible, think if they were told this for the first time as an adult? Why would anyone throw away their beliefs they grew up with for Christianity if they had never heard of it before? Some do, and if you entice them with goodies it helps!

On the subject of Ehrman and debates: I was involved in preparation as one of the interns for Dan Wallace when he debated Ehrman in 2011 at SMU. They've done three debates: one in 2008 in New Orleans, the 2011 SMU debate, and a 2012 debate on the campus at UNC where Ehrman teaches. The general feeling is that each guy won one and one was a draw.

I also listened to Ehrman debate James White in January 2009. White is an excellent Christian apologist - Ehrman shredded him in the cross exam in that debate though I should point out he asked questions that were completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. A guy can win a debate and still not be convincing of his position, so I hesitate to use the medium very much.

Why would someone who had been born and raised a Christian all of a sudden throw away everything they had believed and become an Atheist? Again some do. What makes one Christian believer better than another? How many Christian denominations are there? Are they all correct? And what even makes the Christian religion the only true religion of the almighty God? More uncertainty if you ask me.

True, I don't believe I can answer any of those questions with exact precision.

You have a very eloquent answer to every question, but how do you truly know?

Know what? You'll notice I don't offer dogmatic answers to most things - there's a level of flexibility on many things. My eloquence likely comes from thinking too many of the things we major on are in fact quite minor. The truth of the matter is that one can usually tell by the verbiage whether a question is hostile (or a set-up) or sincere. Most of the time people focus on minutiae to the exclusion of the larger picture.

As far as why I would (for example) "know" the last 12 verses of Mark were added later - well, it best explains the EXISTING evidence. If new evidence is uncovered then my position will have to change commensurately.

Are you saying there is no uncertainty at all? Maybe I am misunderstanding your comments, very possible. Maybe we all are misunderstanding what was written millennium ago? Inerrancy? What really is inerrancy?

No, I'm saying there's PLENTY of uncertainty we all live with. The problem with so many questions that are nested with comments is that they are frustrations with the lack of certainty. Fundamentalist Christians and many skeptics have the same flawed methodology in some ways (presumption that their thought process "must" be true). I'm more critical of the methodology than the conclusions most times.

I believe in God. Many of them in fact and maybe one of them is greater than all the rest, who really knows? I have been contacted telepathically by one of them just as most Christian believers believe, Moses, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elijah, John, Paul, Joseph, and so many more have that is written about in the Bible thousands of years ago. But do you believe me? I am sure you got a giggle out of reading what I wrote about my contact, but what does it prove? Will you take the word of someone living today as you do someone who lived thousands of years ago? And what does that prove?

A fair question. But at SOME POINT (and this is the crux for me) you have to have a believable alternative to the Resurrection. The swoon, hallucination, wrong tomb, and multiple other explanations are more ridiculous than rising from the dead. When you have people who were willing to die for something they KNEW was a lie - that makes no sense.

It does seem to me that someone alive a thousand years ago would be a more reliable witness to events of a thousand years ago than someone today. That is obviously not ironclad (a propagandist, for example), but that's the basic point.

Is there any possibility that a religion born thousands of years ago could be wrong?

From my vantage point, all but one would be wrong.

Remember there are older, much older religions than the Christian religion, that in their day and time was as revered to their believers as the Christian religion is today by its believers. But what if it turns out that Christianity is just another ancient mythical religion like all those others in antiquity?

Then I'll never know it, and it will make no difference - right? Or will I?

That snake handling preacher that died from being bit during his Christian religious ceremony is just as righteous as you or any other Christian believer.

True - none of us is righteous.

He had as much faith in Jesus, if not more, than any other Christian in this world. Was that faith misguided, probably, but that is nothing new for Christians is it? The apostle Paul sure had his hands full admonishing and explaining the faith to his congregations, thus all the letters, and you know fully well the atrocities of Christians in past times and even today. What does any of that prove though?

Yes, we've all seen what those Christians did on 9/11, I agree. (It is amusing how often this is brought up - why is the assumption that just because somebody says they're acting in the name of God that they actually represent God? Just because a graduate of UA goes and becomes a serial killer does not in any way reflect upon UA, even if the killer said he did it in the name of Coach Bryant).

I am not a Christian, nor am I an Atheist. I am not pulling for one side or the other. I think that cat was crazy handling snakes but from his perception he thought he was living for the Lord and put his faith in his beliefs. You are doing just the same yourself. Your perception is different from his as well as mine that is all.

But even assuming it's an issue of perception, you're assuming all perceptions are created equal.

 

[MOAN]

On the subject of Ehrman and debates: I was involved in preparation as one of the interns for Dan Wallace when he debated Ehrman in 2011 at SMU. They've done three debates: one in 2008 in New Orleans, the 2011 SMU debate, and a 2012 debate on the campus at UNC where Ehrman teaches. The general feeling is that each guy won one and one was a draw.

I also listened to Ehrman debate James White in January 2009. White is an excellent Christian apologist - Ehrman shredded him in the cross exam in that debate though I should point out he asked questions that were completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. A guy can win a debate and still not be convincing of his position, so I hesitate to use the medium very much.






True, I don't believe I can answer any of those questions with exact precision.



Know what? You'll notice I don't offer dogmatic answers to most things - there's a level of flexibility on many things. My eloquence likely comes from thinking too many of the things we major on are in fact quite minor. The truth of the matter is that one can usually tell by the verbiage whether a question is hostile (or a set-up) or sincere. Most of the time people focus on minutiae to the exclusion of the larger picture.

As far as why I would (for example) "know" the last 12 verses of Mark were added later - well, it best explains the EXISTING evidence. If new evidence is uncovered then my position will have to change commensurately.




No, I'm saying there's PLENTY of uncertainty we all live with. The problem with so many questions that are nested with comments is that they are frustrations with the lack of certainty. Fundamentalist Christians and many skeptics have the same flawed methodology in some ways (presumption that their thought process "must" be true). I'm more critical of the methodology than the conclusions most times.



A fair question. But at SOME POINT (and this is the crux for me) you have to have a believable alternative to the Resurrection. The swoon, hallucination, wrong tomb, and multiple other explanations are more ridiculous than rising from the dead. When you have people who were willing to die for something they KNEW was a lie - that makes no sense.

It does seem to me that someone alive a thousand years ago would be a more reliable witness to events of a thousand years ago than someone today. That is obviously not ironclad (a propagandist, for example), but that's the basic point.




From my vantage point, all but one would be wrong.




Then I'll never know it, and it will make no difference - right? Or will I?



True - none of us is righteous.




Yes, we've all seen what those Christians did on 9/11, I agree. (It is amusing how often this is brought up - why is the assumption that just because somebody says they're acting in the name of God that they actually represent God? Just because a graduate of UA goes and becomes a serial killer does not in any way reflect upon UA, even if the killer said he did it in the name of Coach Bryant).



But even assuming it's an issue of perception, you're assuming all perceptions are created equal.

As usual, great points! I think all perceptions are equal, although only to the one who perceives them. Perceptions can change and do lots of times, over time, I know mine has. If you perceive someone else perception to be wrong that is your perception not theirs. I have to think if any god was concerned with having all perceptions being the same, then he would have made it easier for them to be perceived the same.

The human desire, need for their to be more than this short life here on Earth I think is the driving force behind all afterlife beliefs and hopes and I personally believe and know there is more than what we see in this physical realm. I happen to know that heaven is not what the religions on this planet picture it to be. There are no 30 virgins waiting on you or pearly, gold streets to walk on while you play harps and sing songs of joy for eternity lol! That is myth just like most elements of religion.

I believe we are on this planet for a purpose, and it is not so the gods can have mortal worshipers, what purpose would that serve a god? Vanity? No I do not believe that and know that is not our purpose. I believe our purpose is an experience one, maybe even an experimental purpose for them to learn from. I do not believe all gods know it all and in fact the Bible even says they do not. But I am getting way off this subject lol!

What I would like to know is, how many times that snake handling preacher has been bitten? What kind of health he was in before he was bitten this last time? Lots of things could have been involved in why he died this time and not another. My great grandparents, when I was a child, had a large German Shepherd that killed many poisonous snakes in his lifetime on their snake infested farm, but finally when he was 11 or 12 years old the last snake he killed and was bit by done him in.

One trick that my cousin would do before taking his snakes to the church for them to handle, was to milk them of their venom, in fact that is what he was doing when he got bit and nearly died. But he did go to the hospital unlike that preacher.

One purpose I am also sure we were not put here for was to test god, which is what to me handling snakes is doing. They may say it is all about testing their faith but to me I do not perceive it that way. Although that is my perception not theirs and I do not assume my perception to be greater than theirs, just mine, mine alone.

 

[Bamaro]

I seem to remember that there were a bunch of snake worshipers around Scottsboro.

 

[MOAN]

I seem to remember that there were a bunch of snake worshipers around Scottsboro.

I'm not sure where all my cousin takes his snakes, but Scottsboro would not surprise me! There is a lot of crazy churches around this part of Alabama for sure! I remember one time years ago when the church my grandmother was going to from time to time on Gunter mountain near Grant, got the Holy Ghost in them one night. One woman broke her leg, another broke her back and a couple wound up with concussions, big knots and bruises on their heads. You would have thought they all got in a fight lol!!!

 

[Catfish]

I'm not sure where all my cousin takes his snakes, but Scottsboro would not surprise me! There is a lot of crazy churches around this part of Alabama for sure! I remember one time years ago when the church my grandmother was going to from time to time on Gunter mountain near Grant, got the Holy Ghost in them one night. One woman broke her leg, another broke her back and a couple wound up with concussions, big knots and bruises on their heads. You would have thought they all got in a fight lol!!!

They wasn't fightin', they was diagreein' Arobickly. :wink: