What TV1A Believes (not necessarily in order.)

[tv1a]

Excuse me, but you need to read my posts more carefully and more s-l-o-w-l-y...

I never said this is something God wants us to do. I said snakes handlers have a legitimate point. I said numerous times the view of snake handlers is just as valid as those who explain it away. They have more scriptural foundation for their actions than legalists have implementing subjective dress codes. It is more foolish to put conditions on snakes and poison than to discuss

Any one else notice the attempt to trivialize my point by insinuating my point is foolish. Because you failed to articulate a biblical perspective without completely thinking it through, you resort to name calling. And you hide behind a scripture to do it. The Reckert like post is a last ditch effort to save face on an inconsistent opinon.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Very well said, Pel.

TV1 is arguing for a rather foolish position here. Paul himself said avoid foolish disputes.

My question to TV1 remains:

Why doesn't HE go and drink some cyanide then, to test God? (Since he seems to believe so strongly this is something God wants us to do)

Until he does so, this whole conversation is pointless.

And if TV1 had a son or daughter that told him they were about to drink some cyanide to test God, would he honestly just sit by and encourage it? Somehow I strongly doubt it.

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Titus 3:9

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I never said this is something God wants us to do. I said snakes handlers have a legitimate point.

If they have a legitimate point, why have so many of them died while handling snakes,when all they were trying to do is glorify God? They're obeying God's word... and end up getting killed for it? Sorry. I'm just not getting that.

Originally Posted by tv1a

Any one else notice the attempt to trivialize my point by insinuating my point is foolish.

(I'm assuming assume you know theres a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit/intent.)
Yes, I believe that ultra-literal application of the letter of the word, rather than the spirit of the word can often be foolish, such as the position you are advocating or defending.

Originally Posted by tv1a

Because you failed to articulate a biblical perspective without completely thinking it through, you resort to name calling. And you hide behind a scripture to do it.

I'm name-calling? What name did I call you? Now you're being hyper-sensitive brother. No one called you any names. To say that someone is defending a foolish point is not to say the person is a fool. No one called you a fool. No need to put words in my mouth. If you feel foolish because some of us here are telling you we think your point is weak, then thats on you, but no one is calling you any names.

Lemme ask this.. when you claimed I was taking "a silly stance" back on --> that TDJakes thread (see post #46) ... should I consider that to be "name-calling" on your part? If it was, then maybe we both owe each other an apology.

TV1...this is not the Nickelodeon or Disney board brother, this is an Apostolic discussion forum. If you are so easily offended then maybe you should pray for tougher skin. People are going to strongly disagree with your points sometimes, so as long as no one is disrespecting you, its counterproductive to get all offended because someone strongly disagrees with your point.

Originally Posted by tv1a

The Reckert like post is a last ditch effort to save face on an inconsistent opinon.

My Reckart-like post? Now THAT's funny. I'm not sure if I was supposed to be offended or amused by that. But I did find it amusing.

Originally Posted by tv1a

It is more foolish to put conditions on snakes and poison than to discuss

OK...ding ding ding !! There we see it.

(Look at what you wrote there. Look real close. And think about what you're really saying or implying there)

That is the key difference between you and me on this issue. If we are to put no conditions (?) on it, then you're saying maybe its ok to unconditionally and indiscriminately drink some cyanide to glorify God? In that case then how about if someone decided he was going to drink some cyanide every morning to prove God? Why do you think church folks don't actually do that in the real world? Would you think that's wise? God gives us the gift of common sense, bro. Even when something is written in black and white of scripture, there is still a place for God-given common sense in applying the word situationally.

There are many verses of scripture that, that if a person were to always apply them literally, unconditionally, and indiscriminately, would and could lead a person into a physically and spiritually dangerous situation far outside the intended meaning of the particular scripture.

I could give you many such examples, but let me just give you 2 real quick. Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. So if a man has a problem with looking lustfully at women, do you think Jesus demands that the man pluck an eye out? Or if he has problem with stealing, do you think Jesus wants him to literally chop his hands off? The answer there would be no, as I guess you also know. Now someone could literally pluck his eye out in that situation, and "back it up" with scripture. But how many of us would think the man applied that passage correctly for the situation? I would think probably none.

I have to seriously wonder how much you've thought through your positions. Its as if you say something, and you feel you have to defend your point to the death, even when others are showing you clear shortcomings in your argument. (This is not our first time butting heads, TV1 ; I'm beginning to sense a pattern here)


And then you accuse me of articulating:

Originally Posted by tv1a

...a biblical perspective without completely thinking it through

I'm not thinking it through?
Um... that's not even making sense right now, buddy.
As for me, I think I've actually spent more time on this than it really deserves.

You certainly don't have to listen to me, but feel free to listen to some of the other points others have made on this same thread. It doesn't make sense sometimes to assume that everybody else got it wrong but you.

Have a good day sir.

[tv1a]

The issue isn't the the success or failure of snake handling. If success or failure was the issue, than most preachers are failures when they pray for the sick. Do the majority of the people you annoint with oil walk away healed? How many people have you prayed for time after time for the same conditions leave with the same problems they asked prayer for? Does that mean God didn't mean it when he said to call for the elders of the church, annointing the sick with oil and they shall recover? Not on your life. There are people who haven't been bitten or died from snake bite.

Most of the points made about this subject are rehashed opinions. I'm neutral on the topic. I don't think either side is more correct than the other. No one has conclusively made the point this activity is a sin. It's a speculative opinion which no one will burn in hell over.

Just because others may hold a more popular opinion about snake handlers, doesn't mean they are right. I'm not suggesting they are wrong, but when one steps away from their preconceived ideas and really study this out and think this through, our intial responses to this activity may not be as black and white as we want it to appear.

Since you tire of the hijacked portion the thread, and so am I. Should we get back to the topic of the thread?

1. I believe repentance, Jesus name baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

2. I believe in prayer.

3. I believe in Bible reading

4. I believe in witnessing and outreach.

5. I believe in discipling people.

6. I believe Biblical holiness is based on Biblical principles.

7. I believe in One God.

8. I believe a follower of Christ should display the Fruit of the Spirt.

9. I do not see anywhere a clothesline is listed as a Fruit of the Spirit.

10. I believe in modesty, gender separation, and clothing that doesn't draw attention to oneself.

11. I believe in using the same principle for television as I do the internet.

12. I believe in mercy and grace.

13. I believe in love.

14. I believe I love to have some more ice cream.

15. I believe in walking in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

16. I believe in miracles signs and wonders.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

If they have a legitimate point, why have so many of them died while handling snakes,when all they were trying to do is glorify God? They're obeying God's word... and end up getting killed for it? Sorry. I'm just not getting that.


(I'm assuming assume you know theres a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit/intent.)
Yes, I believe that ultra-literal application of the letter of the word, rather than the spirit of the word can often be foolish, such as the position you are advocating or defending.

I'm name-calling? What name did I call you? Now you're being hyper-sensitive brother. No one called you any names. To say that someone is defending a foolish point is not to say the person is a fool. No one called you a fool. No need to put words in my mouth. If you feel foolish because some of us here are telling you we think your point is weak, then thats on you, but no one is calling you any names.

Lemme ask this.. when you claimed I was taking "a silly stance" back on --> that TDJakes thread (see post #46) ... should I consider that to be "name-calling" on your part? If it was, then maybe we both owe each other an apology.

TV1...this is not the Nickelodeon or Disney board brother, this is an Apostolic discussion forum. If you are so easily offended then maybe you should pray for tougher skin. People are going to strongly disagree with your points sometimes, so as long as no one is disrespecting you, its counterproductive to get all offended because someone strongly disagrees with your point.

My Reckart-like post? Now THAT's funny. I'm not sure if I was supposed to be offended or amused by that. But I did find it amusing.


OK...ding ding ding !! There we see it.

(Look at what you wrote there. Look real close. And think about what you're really saying or implying there)

That is the key difference between you and me on this issue. If we are to put no conditions (?) on it, then you're saying maybe its ok to unconditionally and indiscriminately drink some cyanide to glorify God? In that case then how about if someone decided he was going to drink some cyanide every morning to prove God? Why do you think church folks don't actually do that in the real world? Would you think that's wise? God gives us the gift of common sense, bro. Even when something is written in black and white of scripture, there is still a place for God-given common sense in applying the word situationally.

There are many verses of scripture that, that if a person were to always apply them literally, unconditionally, and indiscriminately, would and could lead a person into a physically and spiritually dangerous situation far outside the intended meaning of the particular scripture.

I could give you many such examples, but let me just give you 2 real quick. Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. So if a man has a problem with looking lustfully at women, do you think Jesus demands that the man pluck an eye out? Or if he has problem with stealing, do you think Jesus wants him to literally chop his hands off? The answer there would be no, as I guess you also know. Now someone could literally pluck his eye out in that situation, and "back it up" with scripture. But how many of us would think the man applied that passage correctly for the situation? I would think probably none.

I have to seriously wonder how much you've thought through your positions. Its as if you say something, and you feel you have to defend your point to the death, even when others are showing you clear shortcomings in your argument. (This is not our first time butting heads, TV1 ; I'm beginning to sense a pattern here)


And then you accuse me of articulating:

I'm not thinking it through?
Um... that's not even making sense right now, buddy.
As for me, I think I've actually spent more time on this than it really deserves.

You certainly don't have to listen to me, but feel free to listen to some of the other points others have made on this same thread. It doesn't make sense sometimes to assume that everybody else got it wrong but you.

Have a good day sir.