Community > Posts By > Rebelrider

 
Rebelrider's photo
Tue 07/22/08 08:46 AM


Secondly: Why is it that Religious leaders can not teach their flocks from one Chapter at a time instead of jumping from chapter to chapter and verse to verse just to justify their existence and job? The Chapters are set up to tell a complete story from start to finish, but preachers have this knack of taking issues out of context with the whole chapter, and jump back and forth between chapters and such just to make one small point in their teaching. Out of context issues seem the be the norm for most modern day preachers, it seems to me. These are the experts whom we should listen to? AND Experts mind you?


Who were the Edomites? To accurately discuss the Edomites, you would have to start with Esau in Genesis. Then you would have to hit at least half of the books of the Old Testament. If a preacher only mentioned them in passing, then I wouldn't expect a full lesson on the subject. But there are things to be learned by hearing their history as described in the Bible.

So why shouldn't a preacher fully cover a subject, rather than focusing on one chapter?

Some preachers do preach word for word, chapter by chapter. Some preachers go from one topic to another. One month might be dedicated to salvation and the next to repentance. I see benefit in both preaching styles and I am not sure why one would fault either method.


Genesis is nothing more than a genealogy of the people, as records were kept and a supposed idea of the creation of Earth and man. Many of the old Testament books were written as newspaper stories with no known consciousness thinking used whatsoever.

As for preachers, I have listened to one every Sunday morning just to see what he taught, and each Sunday he quotes from one verse in one Chapter and then jumps automatically to another Chapter to support his initial claim. Well, the support to his claim should have been on farther in the same Chapter he first read out of, but he jumped elsewhere to support it. This is out of context teaching and locally nearly all of the Religious preachers do that here in the Midwest in the Bible Belt. So for me it is hard for me to see his relevance in his teachings, but I just listen to see how far out he will go in that realm.

Rebelrider's photo
Tue 07/22/08 08:33 AM



First: During the time of Jesus (supposedly) there were historians available, around that time, and not one of them even documents the existence of Jesus, whatsoever. Not one! The only Documentation is from the Bible, which is only a story book written by Scribes of Political Religious leaders of the Times (1,000 B.C. - 600 A.D.). Needless to say people at that time were nearly totally illiterate even up till just 100 years ago too. So what they were told by politically ambitious religious leaders were set in stone as law. Besides, Jesus taught (supposedly) in metaphors and not so much in real life events.



False.
Google Flavius Josephus, and you will learn a little bit more.


And he only called him Christ because that was a definition of "The Anointed One" too. Plus he never documented the whole life of Jesus either. Only what the Church wrote about him, because he never even knew the man personally. Flavius was born in 37-38 A.D. which was after the supposed crucifixion. So how did he know of Jesus except through word of mouth from authorities other than his own. Flavius only spoke of Jesus in passing once and a small note of Jesus even being a so-called Christ, supposedly, but not believed by him totally! So this is also out of context!

Rebelrider's photo
Tue 07/22/08 07:55 AM
Edited by Rebelrider on Tue 07/22/08 08:20 AM

....

Regardless of what man believes if he lives a life that is good, and is kind, and is sweet, and just are the greatest things since slice bread...that is all well and good.

I have always been a nice person, helping anybody that needed it.....I have always always looked for the good in all people.....It's not a matter of being nice without turning to God. What I hear a lot of is. I am a nice person, I am good to people so I will go to heaven....nope it's not that simple.

And again if people don't want or believe in God....I am way ok with it...But also give the respect that is given back......I do not have a choice of what happens to people abra....that's their choice...

And again it's your choice to want to be wherever you want to be when that time comes....I am neither your judge or anything else....but give the same respect to those that believe as they do.....It does work both ways.




Ok if going to heaven is not that simple, give me your steps to getting to heaven and BY THE WAY, define your heaven for me. I don't want to reply out of context with your thoughts.

IMHO Heaven is what we make of it in our lifetimes and not a specific location as religion likes to maintain. Heaven is our "Safe Place" our paradise if you will. This is our personal spot, not one associated with everyone going to meet some spiritual being there.

Is there a God? Sure there is, if you believe there is one, but each one's God is a totally personal belief system within one's self. Who can you or your God really Judge? You and you alone and nobody else, because you must be held accountable to yourself first and your God as you believe in it. You do not know what everyone else thinks, what they will do, and how they react to emotional events.

Besides, Emotional judgments are false judgments, because emotions are spontaneous reactions created by our inspirational right brains and set into motion without rational thinking prior, from our rational thinking left brain. And there is no factual, tangible issues that can be judged from emotional reactions, only the actions following the emotional reaction can be judged. You can not use the Emotional reaction as a rational basis for judgment of the action following, mainly because there was no rational thinking basis connected to it. On top of that, who made you a God to make that judgment call? You personally do not have that authority.

People must learn to hold themselves accountable before they can even think about holding anyone else accountable, and you had better know EVERYTHING going on in that person's mind before you make that judgment call. I don't think you can ever know everything that is in a person's mind, so judgments, then are taken out of context with actual facts. As far as I am concerned you can shove a psychiatrist, psychologist, or any other mind manipulator, where the sun will never shine, as these people implant their ideas into people's minds for their own justified ends. I have personally known a psychologist who was just as crazy acting as his patients, and he taught college psychology!

Rebelrider's photo
Tue 07/22/08 07:38 AM
Hey Guys:

What I am trying to figure out is several things.

First: During the time of Jesus (supposedly) there were historians available, around that time, and not one of them even documents the existence of Jesus, whatsoever. Not one! The only Documentation is from the Bible, which is only a story book written by Scribes of Political Religious leaders of the Times (1,000 B.C. - 600 A.D.). Needless to say people at that time were nearly totally illiterate even up till just 100 years ago too. So what they were told by politically ambitious religious leaders were set in stone as law. Besides, Jesus taught (supposedly) in metaphors and not so much in real life events.

Secondly: Why is it that Religious leaders can not teach their flocks from one Chapter at a time instead of jumping from chapter to chapter and verse to verse just to justify their existence and job? The Chapters are set up to tell a complete story from start to finish, but preachers have this knack of taking issues out of context with the whole chapter, and jump back and forth between chapters and such just to make one small point in their teaching. Out of context issues seem the be the norm for most modern day preachers, it seems to me. These are the experts whom we should listen to? AND Experts mind you?

Thirdly: The story of Jesus is NOT the only Virginal Birth even mentioned in the Bible. Look at the virginal birth of Joseph in the Old Testament. A lot of similar events that happened there. Now look at other Religions and their claim to have Virginal Births, crucifixions, resurrections, and 12 followers too. So, who is copy-catting who here? People are too quick in Christianity, to take everything so literal from the Bible, instead of learning the lessons taught from the stories it presents. I debate if any of the stories told in that book are even real, let alone have much relevancy, as the Christian Religion places on it! Let's not leave out any other religion, for that matter.