an odd thanks to snakes

[Intothewind]

I've wondered on this funny life thread for a while.

When I was little little my Gma scribbled or tore out all pictures of snakes from an animal book we had. Reason...snakes are evil

An early childhood memory is my father chopping a gophersnake to pieces in our front yard...in part at least because snakes are evil. My young brain wondered what this critter could have possibly done to deserve such a welcoming.

At a yp camp one of the elders captured a young rattlesnake in a bucket. Their was considerable debate and sone other elders wanted to kill it like all the others found because it was evil, a couple others protested this...here I learned that despite what lc folk may say opinions still exist. Said snake was released by the first elder and myself

A lc friend donated a box of audubon encyclopedias to little me who promptly read all of them. Among many other things it sowed seed to the idea that organisms cannot be classified as good or bad but simply are.

I remember a highschool convo with my dad...he tried to defend the young earth and also genesis gap ideas, and mentioned how liking snakes in a christian family is like wearing the wrong colors to a hs
football game. I retorted that hating someone for wearing the wrong colors is very irrational.

I oddly have snakes to thank for showing me irrational human behavior is common and even an integral part of our species.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I've wondered on this funny life thread for a while.

When I was little little my Gma scribbled or tore out all pictures of snakes from an animal book we had. Reason...snakes are evil

An early childhood memory is my father chopping a gophersnake to pieces in our front yard...in part at least because snakes are evil. My young brain wondered what this critter could have possibly done to deserve such a welcoming.

At a yp camp one of the elders captured a young rattlesnake in a bucket. Their was considerable debate and sone other elders wanted to kill it like all the others found because it was evil, a couple others protested this...here I learned that despite what lc folk may say opinions still exist. Said snake was released by the first elder and myself

A lc friend donated a box of audubon encyclopedias to little me who promptly read all of them. Among many other things it sowed seed to the idea that organisms cannot be classified as good or bad but simply are.

I remember a highschool convo with my dad...he tried to defend the young earth and also genesis gap ideas, and mentioned how liking snakes in a christian family is like wearing the wrong colors to a hs
football game. I retorted that hating someone for wearing the wrong colors is very irrational.

I oddly have snakes to thank for showing me irrational human behavior is common and even an integral part of our species.

I think it's cool that you were able to draw a broader lesson about irrational human behavior from your experience. Wikipedia says that about a third of adult humans are irrationally afraid of snakes or ophidiophobic, making this the most common reported phobia. Wiki also notes that "a fear of snakes is alluded to in Genesis 3:15 as a consequence of the serpent's temptation of Eve; this temptation causing her and Adam to commit original sin." So, religious justification for irrational fears started early and continues today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Wikipedia says that about a third of adult humans are irrationally afraid of snakes or ophidiophobic, making this the most common reported phobia.

I s'pose I'm part of the two-thirds who are rationally afraid of snakes, especially the aggressive kind with fangs and venom which are found on the trails.

Now what do you call the kind of person who gets fanged by a rattler while trying to take a selfie with it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I s'pose I'm part of the two-thirds who are rationally afraid of snakes, especially the aggressive kind with fangs and venom which are found on the trails.

Now what do you call the kind of person who gets fanged by a rattler while trying to take a selfie with it?

Watch your step bro.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I've wondered on this funny life thread for a while.

When I was little little my Gma scribbled or tore out all pictures of snakes from an animal book we had. Reason...snakes are evil

An early childhood memory is my father chopping a gophersnake to pieces in our front yard...in part at least because snakes are evil. My young brain wondered what this critter could have possibly done to deserve such a welcoming.

At a yp camp one of the elders captured a young rattlesnake in a bucket. Their was considerable debate and sone other elders wanted to kill it like all the others found because it was evil, a couple others protested this...here I learned that despite what lc folk may say opinions still exist. Said snake was released by the first elder and myself

A lc friend donated a box of audubon encyclopedias to little me who promptly read all of them. Among many other things it sowed seed to the idea that organisms cannot be classified as good or bad but simply are.

I remember a highschool convo with my dad...he tried to defend the young earth and also genesis gap ideas, and mentioned how liking snakes in a christian family is like wearing the wrong colors to a hs
football game. I retorted that hating someone for wearing the wrong colors is very irrational.

I oddly have snakes to thank for showing me irrational human behavior is common and even an integral part of our species.

Nice to see you here IntoTheWind (great name).

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

Some early Gnostics who couldn't add up the big difference between the God of Jesus and the God of the OT used this verse to claim that the serpent in the garden was Christ coming to Adam and Eve to save them from the awful creator law-giver demiurge god.

In mythology, that's rich with serpent myth's, serpents are not necessarily bad. For one, they can go into the ground and come back up, symbolizing going into Hades (death), and coming back up. And for another, they slough off their skin, representing new birth. Both symbolizing being born again, or anew.

When I got the boot from the LC I was branded a serpent, and saints were told to have nothing to do with my wife and I. They were told we were serpents that would poison them.

I now see that the lead elder was a serpent (of that sort)... and so was Nee and Lee.

And now I think that real serpents are much safer than human serpents.

And I do not kill snakes. The non-poisonous ones don't bother me. I had one in my shop for awhile. I use to catch mice for him. The poisonous ones I catch and release in the woods. They have as much of a right to exist as I do.

[awareness]

Intothewind,

And oh! Have you gotten into Henry David Thoreau yet?

[Intothewind]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I s'pose I'm part of the two-thirds who are rationally afraid of snakes, especially the aggressive kind with fangs and venom which are found on the trails.

Now what do you call the kind of person who gets fanged by a rattler while trying to take a selfie with it?

Just the same as someone who is trying to stand in front of a moving train and take a selfie. Both in some situations are dangerous-neither needs to be feared to nearly eliminate risk. I spend a lot of time outdoors and have had many rattlesnake encounters while leading kids on trail. I did not feel the least bit concerned for my or their safety since I took a few simple precautions. The scariest part of some days is getting groups of kids across roads!

Far fewer people are afraid of cars, and in today's modern world they carry far more risks than snakes. Some studies on primates suggest we are hardwired to easily pick up fear of snakes. Those who did not perhaps would be weeded out of the gene pool back in the day when snakes were a greater risk. We humans are awful at judging risk

We also try to judge organisms in our daily lives, good, evil, clean, unclean, beneficial, useless, etc. I realize that they are none of these. They are simply evolving and surviving, and our morals cannot apply to the natural world.

I haven't read any Thoreau, but the guy seems pretty chill

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Just the same as someone who is trying to stand in front of a moving train and take a selfie. Both in some situations are dangerous-neither needs to be feared to nearly eliminate risk.

Not sure what defines an irrational fear of snakes, but my wife definitely could be their poster child. One time we were at Disney World in a crowded 3-D theatre on a hot day, equipped with all those nice special effects. A few minutes into some Disney kids show, this python snake jumps off the screen right into our faces while the seat ahead spritzes us with water. My wife shrieked and flew out of that theatre. What a sight!

Perhaps she would not be so morbidly afraid of snakes if one of her naughty teenage brothers had not put that green garter snake in her bed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure what defines an irrational fear of snakes, but my wife definitely could be their poster child. One time we were at Disney World in a crowded 3-D theatre on a hot day, equipped with all those nice special effects. A few minutes into some Disney kids show, this python snake jumps off the screen right into our faces while the seat ahead spritzes us with water. My wife shrieked and flew out of that theatre. What a sight!

Perhaps she would not be so morbidly afraid of snakes if one of her naughty teenage brothers had not put that green garter snake in her bed.

My sister hates snakes. One morning she got up, went to the bathrm, and walked into the kitchen to find two 6 ft snakes coiled up and wrapped around each other, obviously gettin it on. That was it. She was trapped in her bedrm.

She called her alcoholic neighbor, who came and cut their heads off with a shovel. So sad. They were harmless rat snakes.

Humans are animals, and killers. Like the dentist that recently killed Cecil the Lion, for the sport of it. I hope charges are brought up against him. If they ever find him. He has lots of death threats out against him. I understand the emotional charge of it all but is killing because of killing right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

My sister hates snakes. One morning she got up, went to the bathrm, and walked into the kitchen to find two 6 ft snakes coiled up and wrapped around each other, obviously gettin it on. That was it. She was trapped in her bedrm.

She called her alcoholic neighbor, who came and cut their heads off with a shovel. So sad. They were harmless rat snakes.

Humans are animals, and killers. Like the dentist that recently killed Cecil the Lion, for the sport of it. I hope charges are brought up against him. If they ever find him. He has lots of death threats out against him. I understand the emotional charge of it all but is killing because of killing right?

I can understand how your sister would want to kill a couple intruders trespassing in her home, frightening her so, but nowadays we have an epidemic of medical doctors, chopping up babies, selling their body parts, and then coldly discussing prices over dinner.

Like you said, some humans are animals, and murderers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

A lc friend donated a box of audubon encyclopedias to little me who promptly read all of them. Among many other things it sowed seed to the idea that organisms cannot be classified as good or bad but simply are.

An irony of church history is that we celebrate those who once had the temerity to question the status quo, and dogma of the age, but forbid anyone to question our own dogmas, today. Case in point: Martin Luther questioned the RCC & left to form his own sect, then Nee questioned Luther's Protestant heirs and did likewise, all of which was good and necessary for God to do anything (so the story goes). But how dare we, today, question Nee's ideas?!? Once Nee showed up - that's it. No more questioning.

But with science anyone can think, ask, experiment, at any time. Anything can be questioned, and challenged. One reason we have a common pool of collective knowledge is that it's been repeatedly probed and questioned, and it still stands. Its repeated tests establish its validity. Would that our religious ideas were allowed the same treatment! Instead it's "hands off". Don't think, don't question, just say, "amen". No wonder the young people leave in droves.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

An irony of church history is that we celebrate those who once had the temerity to question the status quo, and dogma of the age, but forbid anyone to question our own dogmas, today. Case in point: Martin Luther questioned the RCC & left to form his own sect, then Nee questioned Luther's Protestant heirs and did likewise, all of which was good and necessary for God to do anything (so the story goes). But how dare we, today, question Nee's ideas?!? Once Nee showed up - that's it. No more questioning.

We are all too prone to think that we have the final answer when, at best, we only have a decent question.

In hindsight, I would say that Nee had questions to which he supplied answers that I cannot stomach. Even the ones we think of as benign. Why? Because the nature of his error (as I see it) is to sprinkle it all over the place in the midst of stuff that no one would question. Not saying I think he was devious about it. But the result is that there seems to be too many . . . well . . . rattlesnakes hiding in the bushes.

With respect to the topic of the thread, I note that we have a pool and we occasionally find a small snake trapped in the water. Got in but can't get out. Always a very small one. I would simply net it out and toss it into the bushes somewhere, but if my wife is around, it is death. "That thing will be right back in here again tomorrow!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

An irony of church history is that we celebrate those who once had the temerity to question the status quo, and dogma of the age, but forbid anyone to question our own dogmas, today. Case in point: Martin Luther questioned the RCC & left to form his own sect, then Nee questioned Luther's Protestant heirs and did likewise, all of which was good and necessary for God to do anything (so the story goes). But how dare we, today, question Nee's ideas?!? Once Nee showed up - that's it. No more questioning.

W. Nee only did what Luther had done before him. When Luther's contemporary Ulrich Zwingli came along in neighboring Switzerland, Luther would not extend to him the arm of fellowship. In their famous meeting, Luther and Zwingli agreed on 14.5 of 15 points of discussion, only to disagree on the Table bread, with Luther insisting on transubstantiation and Zwingli consubstantiation. Like Nee and Lee, Luther wanted no rivals, nor peers.

I never did like Luther to be considered as Nee's "Father of the Recovery." Luther himself credited John Huss before him, and many of Luther's contemporaries were far more spiritual. Labeling Luther as such reckoned him the modern day Abraham, the father of faith. Nee/Lee's simplified "recovery" church history was steeped in self-serving errors, the chief of which was the lineage of MOTA's. Lee then upended that whole MOTA genealogy paradigm by claiming that "the era of spiritual giants is over," thus introducing the "Blended" era of church ecclesiology for the new Millenia.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

With respect to the topic of the thread, I note that we have a pool and we occasionally find a small snake trapped in the water. Got in but can't get out. Always a very small one. I would simply net it out and toss it into the bushes somewhere, but if my wife is around, it is death. "That thing will be right back in here again tomorrow!"

Perhaps it is only women who have an irrational fear of snakes, dating back to the first woman back in the garden.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps it is only women who have an irrational fear of snakes, dating back to the first woman back in the garden.

We wish she was afraid of the snake. It would have changed everything.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

We wish she was afraid of the snake. It would have changed everything.

What are you reading, the Amelia Bedelia version?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee then upended that whole MOTA genealogy paradigm by claiming that "the era of spiritual giants is over," thus introducing the "Blended" era of church ecclesiology for the new Millenia.

Somehow I think that this new paradigm of church history will hinder them from taking over the world. The Blended Era doesn't have that charismatic thrust or imperative to it... they seem like a bunch of museum curators. Who wants to give their life over to a museum of marginal theology? At least with WL you could count on the appearance of novelty.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

In hindsight, I would say that Nee had questions to which he supplied answers that I cannot stomach. Even the ones we think of as benign. Why? Because the nature of his error (as I see it) is to sprinkle it all over the place in the midst of stuff that no one would question. Not saying I think he was devious about it. But the result is that there seems to be too many . . . well . . . rattlesnakes hiding in the bushes.

What is the time span between Nee getting saved and formulating novel theology? I don't think he was saved very long before he began supplying his own answers to life's hard questions. And pretty soon he had a following, and the rest, as they say, is history. In this case literally.

In Nee's culture he was the one with the answers, so he was quickly the de facto Uber Boss and couldn't be questioned. Social order, or in this case "good order in the church", demanded it, and works like "Authority and Submission" and "Handing Over" soon followed. To question Nee's answers would be akin to rebelling against God, evidently one of the most heinous crimes possible in the imaginable universe.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

What is the time span between Nee getting saved and formulating novel theology? I don't think he was saved very long before he began supplying his own answers to life's hard questions. And pretty soon he had a following, and the rest, as they say, is history. In this case literally.

In Nee's culture he was the one with the answers, so he was quickly the de facto Uber Boss and couldn't be questioned. Social order, or in this case "good order in the church", demanded it, and works like "Authority and Submission" and "Handing Over" soon followed. To question Nee's answers would be akin to rebelling against God, evidently one of the most heinous crimes possible in the imaginable universe.

My recollection is that he was saved at about 17 and was already working on the Spiritual Man at roughly 21 or so, and had been doing other writing for at least a couple of years.

In other words, he was barely knowledgeable of his subject matter. It is said that he read and comprehended at an enormous rate, reading entire books as fast as he could turn the pages. But a lot of facts does not impart wisdom and true knowledge.

I think that his ability to grab an apparently relevant fact from his reading made him a nearly impossible person to debate with. The result would then generally be that people would defer to him for information. Then, whether by belief or desire for position, he rapidly had a following.

The rest is both history and myth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Somehow I think that this new paradigm of church history will hinder them from taking over the world. The Blended Era doesn't have that charismatic thrust or imperative to it... they seem like a bunch of museum curators. Who wants to give their life over to a museum of marginal theology? At least with WL you could count on the appearance of novelty.

After Lee passed, one of the Blendeds (who had just been "promoted") gave some senior GLA brothers a tour of Lee's house. It was eye-opening for some. The age of "museum curators" had begun, and the "handwriting was on the wall."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee then upended that whole MOTA genealogy paradigm by claiming that "the era of spiritual giants is over," thus introducing the "Blended" era of church ecclesiology for the new Millenia.

Thus, Lee negated his proposition that there is MOTA in every age. He was not one to let logic get in his way. And the faithful sheeple, having already agreed never to even question him let alone call him on it when he contradicted himself bleated "Amen" and followed, as I hear they continue to do today.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thus, Lee negated his proposition that there is MOTA in every age. He was not one to let logic get in his way. And the faithful sheeple, having already agreed never to even question him let alone call him on it when he contradicted himself bleated "Amen" and followed, as I hear they continue to do today.

A minister of the age, and blended brothers? What a laughingstock! Is there enough blended's to fit in a clown car? Cuz that's what they are. And I guess Kangas is the driver of the car.

It's obvious that once people give up their reasoning they'll buy into any absurdity. No one in their right mind would still be in the local church.

The local church today must be suffering from brain drain. They say "get out of your mind." I guess they take that Amelia Bedelia literal.