Religious objections to your whisky drinking/collection?

[Liechtenstein]

I'm one who challenges everything, because i know that what is real can withstand any challenge.

Very profound insight here...I am impressed, actually!

As whisky lovers we KNOW when something tastes good, and having someone tell us it tastes good doesn't do it. When you taste a mindblowing dram, all concepts, conjecture etc. comes to a stop. And the ability to taste is within you!

True. And what constitutes Truth? That which is and nothing else.

Here is something written 700+ years before the birth of Jesus:

Isaiah 7:14, Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel (meaning God with us).

This is just one of the many, many prophecies written between 3000BC and 400BC concerning Jesus. It is tough to argue with the prophetic writings which have a 100% success rate.

Wisely, the fools who wrote the Bhagavad-gita, the Koran, the Book of Mormon and others never bothered to issue prophecy. Prophecy is a risky business: even a noted psychic like Jeanne Dixon has only a 5% success rate. Pretty shabby.

You owe it to yourself to look into this further...

It's interesting what the bible says though at John 3:16.16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

Oh! There is a Bible scholar in Les Taylor! We've got you surrounded, Reggaeblues!

Excuse me now as I must get back to my Crown Royal.

[pkt77242]

Reggaeblues wrote:
To say "God identifies himself with the male principle..." is well, a very challengeable statement.

Not at all. The Bible makes clear over and over and over that God is a masculine principle. God created Adam in his image, not Eve. Judaism and Christianity are the two faiths (not their religious expressions) that have done more to promote women and their rights throughout history than the likes of Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism ever have, put together. Stories of brave and important women dot the pages of the Bible but they are nowhere to be seen in the Koran...

Sorry Liechtenstein, I have to agree with RB, The bible, Koran, and other religous books are by no means factual and so using them to prove that God is a masculine principle doesn't hold water.

1. God identifies himself with the male principle, not the female. Calling God she is a New Age practice.

Only because women having real rights is more or less a modern phenom. See most of our religous texts were written a long ago and so those texts must be taken in the context of the times they were written. Women didn't have the rights or equal status back then that they have now and so you wouldn't expect to see God referenced as a woman back then.

Some older religions hold references to mother earth and that would be a reference to a female "high power".

Faith is a believe in a higher power/force.
Religion is an attempt to explain the unexplainable. What happens after death, how the world was created, what god thinks etc.

Anyone saying the bible/any religous text is literal/"factual" or that they know exactly what God says/means/wants is A) delusional or B) lying or C) has blind faith. Hope this didn't come off as harsh, I didn't mean it that way.
You can argue that the Bible/religous text may capture the spirit of God but you can't argue it is his words. Heck we even try to give God feelings such as jealousy, love, disapointment and hate. but those are human words and human defintions. Our attempt to explaind the unexplainable.

Sean

[pkt77242]

True. And what constitutes Truth? That which is and nothing else.

Here is something written 700+ years before the birth of Jesus:

Isaiah 7:14, Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel (meaning God with us).

This is just one of the many, many prophecies written between 3000BC and 400BC concerning Jesus. It is tough to argue with the prophetic writings which have a 100% success rate.

Wisely, the fools who wrote the Bhagavad-gita, the Koran, the Book of Mormon and others never bothered to issue prophecy. Prophecy is a risky business: even a noted psychic like Jeanne Dixon has only a 5% success rate. Pretty shabby.

You owe it to yourself to look into this further...

Liechenstein,
There are a good portion of biblical scholars who believe that the new testament was written in such a way as to prove that Jesus was the one talked about in the Old testament. The problem is that the New testament botches a fair amount of this such as The birth of Jesus in Bethlem, The two books that talk about Jesus birth give different reasons as to why they are in Bethlehem and there is no proof of a census being done as is mentioned. There is also some proof that the bible was tinkered with thoughout the early years so that it would say what they wanted it too.

Some very intersting books on this are "Misquoting Jesus", and "Jesus Interrupted" both by Barth Ehrman

Sean

[ClubSmed]

1. God identifies himself with the male principle, not the female. Calling God she is a New Age practice.

Depends on your religion as Pagans (and I believe that Paganism may be older than Christianity?) worship the Godess

[Reggaeblues]

Excellent posts Sean. I am indeed "surrounded" as Lichtenstein writes! Feels great actually.

My only regret is that I am not "surrounded" by y'all round a table having this discussion, with an ever depleting bottle of Lagavulin to fuel our flights of fancy!

Well, I have oft used this forum as a caffeine substitute to wake me up in the morning(to compensate for the excesses of the previous nights intake of Scotland's finest no doubt) but this thread really gets my braincells buzzing!

Lichtentein, isn't it a bit patronising to refer to those who wrote other texts as"fools?" Hey, I've been guilty of spiritual snobbery, but I've given up trying to "big up" the Bible, say, or even myself, by putting down apparent competitors. I have long been fascinated by the similarities, rather than the differences in these texts, as was my aunt, a very Christian woman who once told me that, though it didn't inspire her to change faiths, she was surprised to find her preconceptions blown by reading the Gita. what surprised her were the parallels with the Bible.

but we humans love to dwell on the differences between us, rather than the one thing we all have in common. Remember in St. Mark, when Jesus' disciples have been out doing their thing. Reporting back to the Master, they say they met a man "casting out devils" and "rebuked" him because he was not "one of us." JC blows a fuse and rebukes them! "If he was casting out devils he WAS one of us." Because he, unlike we,was wise enough to see tha God is bigger than the labels and rules we are compelled to stick on ourselves and each other...and on the Almighty himself(herself, itself, etc etc.!)

Just because you support a particular football team, or in my case a particular racing driver, doesn't mean that all the others are crap!

Boy, there's so much to challenge here!

Sean suggests "the bible was tinkered with." My wife has a degree in comparitive religion. She says that indeed, there was a lot of politics involved in whose accounts were included or not. I, in my youth, found other writings on JC that only expanded my understanding, for example the "Essene Gospel" - from a text only discovered during WW2. Fascinating, and insightful to say the least. Furthurmore, the 4 gospels we have in the Bible were written, as I understand, some 30-40 years after the event. Furthurmore, the word "virgin" in Greek literally means "woman of marriable age." Wow! That's one to set the cat among the pigeons!

Let us remember that the Bible was written by human beings, no different from you or I. These writers were inspired to record their experiences for the benefit of humanity. However, do you think they were exempt the social and cultural attitudes of the day? I don't think so.

Sorry, but Christianity(as distinguished from the "teachings of Jesus" dare I say!) , has long been patriarchal as has been pointed out in these posts. Who decided that Mary Magdalene was a "whore" as was the myth when I grew up? In my book she was probably Jesus' closest devotee, possibly his wife. shock, horror! Jesus couldn;t have had SEX now could he??? For some reason sex = impurity in the Christian belief system, which I just don't get...

Point is, as I said in an earlier post, if something is real it can withstand any challenge. All these challenges I have just made I am comfortable with. If I destroy myths surrounding Jesus, one thing I cannot destroy is his teaching.

To understand and implement that in one's life, to the best of one's undrstanding, actually works! What's more it doesn;t have to turn you into a religious nut...I find it to be a resource, a spring of the purest form of common sense, to get the best out of this incredible, amazing life we have been given.

Once you've read the Bible, drink the damn whisky and see for yourself! You will be amazed!(or in the case of the Macallan 15YO Fine Oak, disappointed!)

As Lichenstein says, "the truth just IS". but one cannot find or feel the truth for oneself until all concepts, traditions and belief systems are removed, or at least challenged.

As Michael Caine once said: "Not a lotta people know that..."

[Liechtenstein]

Sorry Liechtenstein, I have to agree with RB, The bible, Koran, and other religous books are by no means factual and so using them to prove that God is a masculine principle doesn't hold water.

The Bible is first a history of the Jewish people and is accurate - and has proven itself to be accurate by archæology - insofar as its historcal narrative is concerned. It also claims to be the word of God in its prophetic writings.

As for the Koran, it was recited to Mohammed while he was in a cave by some apparition he called Gabriel. The Koran contains no history, no prophecy. It is an esoteric and spiritual text, totally different from the Bible. I might also add that the Koran is a boring read, just like Hinduism's vedic texts or the 'gita. Spiritual texts are always dull: they are like an overbearing mother harping at you...or a drunken poet crying in his beer.

As for the rest of the questions raised by you, Reggae and ClubSmed, I'll get back to them. I have to go work right now...

[Novice Scotch Fan]

I think this thread is drifting pretty far from appreciation of whisky. Maybe the moderator should shut this down before things get really heated.

Just as Church and State were separated a long time ago (in western countries) so too should talk of whisky and religion. IMHO.

[ClubSmed]

I think this thread is drifting pretty far from appreciation of whisky. Maybe the moderator should shut this down before things get really heated.

Just as Church and State were separated a long time ago (in western countries) so too should talk of whisky and religion. IMHO.

I see your point, but as the good book says "Man can not live on *whisky* alone"


*okey, he might of said bread but this is a whisky forum as pointed out

[Reggaeblues]

Smooth Sailing here!

Still is, as far as i'm concerned! these may be strong views expressed on this thread , but I feel no "heat" or disrespect from, or towards anyone! Quite the opposite in fact - very respectful.

It's a good chance to get to know people better...after all, we discuss our taste in cars, music "what have you been listening to/who have you seen "live"/what films do you like/what car do you drive "etc. So why not life/existence issues?

I like to imagine this forum as a "cyber" version of a bunch of like minded people sitting around a table having a good old natter whilst consuming copious amounts of our favourite dram.

Whisky is, after all, the "water of life!" When I dram , I love to do it in company, and have enriching conversations about all manner of stuff, as long as i haven't drunk too much to talk coherently...

Beside which, whisky IS a religion to some of us. When I nosed and drank a dram of 50 year old Macallan at a tasting a while back(£3000 + a bottle!) it was definitely a religious experience. Same with the Lagavulin 21!!!!!!!

[les taylor]

For my twopeenyworth I think the discussion has been conducted in a repectful and grown up manner with no one trying to force their beliefs on anyone. And has been interesting reading. With that RB I am in total agreement with you. And hope that if it remains so, and bearing the nature of the subject that this thread is allowed to continue.

[Liechtenstein]

I think this thread is drifting pretty far from appreciation of whisky. Maybe the moderator should shut this down before things get really heated.

Everyone posting here appreciates whisky and we may at any time make reference to it. Whisky is our common ground.

I agree with Les, ClubSmed and Reggaeblues that this thread should continue. Reggaeblues said something interesting, too:

It's a good chance to get to know people better...after all, we discuss our taste in cars, music "what have you been listening to/who have you seen "live"/what films do you like/what car do you drive "etc. So why not life/existence issues?

We are all more than whisky lovers and I often post here while sipping a dram. Anyway, I'm on a short lunch break and with coffee in hand, will address another one of Sean's comments:

There are a good portion of biblical scholars who believe that the new testament was written in such a way as to prove that Jesus was the one talked about in the Old testament.

Yes, there is a «good portion» of theology professors who hold this view; they are not biblical scholars as such and the distinction is important. Having said that, keep in mind that there is a group of people who earnestly hold that the Apollo lunar landings were actually filmed in the Arizona desert. Another larger group is certain that the 9/11 attacks on New York were engineered by the Bush Administration with Israeli help. Kooky ideas blurted out on a whim are all over.

So, are the New Testament witnesses reliable? or did they doctor their writing to agree with OT prophecy?

Here are some points that you have to consider:

1. The NT writers were by and large contemporaries and actors in the events they recorded.

2. All NT writers were either apostles or associated with apostles and shared the high standard of ethics promoted by Jesus himself.

3. All NT writers (but John) died for their beliefs, violent deaths at the hands of the authorities. None recanted and said, «Wait! I was only joking!»

Historian Will Durant said of Jesus' story,

«That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels...»

I must return to work. I'll address the remaining points tonight while enjoying...a Laga 16, I'll treat myself!

This is, indeed, a special occasion!

[pkt77242]

Liechtenstein

Sorry to disagree but even though the NT writers may bear the name of mathew, mark, luke and john they were not the apostles or linked to the apostles. Mark was the first to be written and it wasn't until about 40 years after the death of christ and the last one probably wasnt written till about 70 years after jesus.

Just like a some of Pauls letters are thought to be forgeries.


There are a fair number of biblical scholars that believe the NT has been changed over time to fit what the church or individual scribes wanted it to say. Bart ehrman is probably the best known as he writes a fair number of books. He is a biblical scholar who is a has studies some of our oldest surviving manuscripts and he points out a fair number of the changes.

It may be worth your time to check out the two books I mentioned in an earlier post.

I am not saying that the NT is made up, just that A) it is a story passed down for at least one generation if not 2 or 3 for some of the later written books and that leads to changes of the story (have you ever played telephone) B) some parts of it contradict each other and C) we have different versions that have been found some that have major differences.

As to your point about the old testament being acurate. I have to respectfully disagree but I will post that part when I get home as it is really annoying typing on my blackberry. Till tonight and I believe I will join you with a Laga.
Sean

[Reggaeblues]

Apologies for going off topic, but looking at the quote at the bottom of Sean's post,I never knew Churchill drank Irish!

Izzat grounds for religious objection?

[Ganga]

The question to me is not whether this conversation should continue but rather should it move to the bar.

[Liechtenstein]

Sorry to disagree but even though the NT writers may bear the name of mathew, mark, luke and john they were not the apostles or linked to the apostles. Mark was the first to be written and it wasn't until about 40 years after the death of christ and the last one probably wasnt written till about 70 years after jesus.

The above is wrong. All 8 or 9 writers of the NT were either apostles, or associated with them. This includes Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude. The conspiracy theorists say otherwise and I'm well aware of that as I have done a good deal of reading the «other side's» books.

You will find plenty of biblical scholars who will confirm that the earliest material about Jesus's life was collected by A.D. 55-60. Historian Colin Hemer confirmed that Luke wrote Acts by A.D. 62, for example. Most of the NT was completed before A.D. 70, when the Temple was sacked & burned.

I could go on. Ultimately, it depends on your willingness to consider the evidence on both sides. I would add that if this really interests you, you owe it to yourself to read the Bible.

Now...don't post any more until I answer the points you raised in your first post!

[pkt77242]

Sorry to disagree but even though the NT writers may bear the name of mathew, mark, luke and john they were not the apostles or linked to the apostles. Mark was the first to be written and it wasn't until about 40 years after the death of christ and the last one probably wasnt written till about 70 years after jesus.

The above is wrong. All 8 or 9 writers of the NT were either apostles, or associated with them. This includes Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude. The conspiracy theorists say otherwise and I'm well aware of that as I have done a good deal of reading the «other side's» books.

You will find plenty of biblical scholars who will confirm that the earliest material about Jesus's life was collected by A.D. 55-60. Historian Colin Hemer confirmed that Luke wrote Acts by A.D. 62, for example. Most of the NT was completed before A.D. 70, when the Temple was sacked & burned.

I could go on. Ultimately, it depends on your willingness to consider the evidence on both sides. I would add that if this really interests you, you owe it to yourself to read the Bible.

Now...don't post any more until I answer the points you raised in your first post!

I do agree with you on one point, there are definitely two sides to this arguement and both can be compelling at times. While I could see how one can believe that they were written by the four, from the literature that I have read I don't believe it. Liechtenstein, I will go reread the bible(haven't read it since college), if you will read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Paul almost for sure did not write some of his epistles including Timothy 1 and 2, Titus and Ephisians and Peter probably did not write his two epistles (split over the first rather positive he didn't the second). I disagree with the dates given, but the fact is we will never know, most of the sources that I have seen point to slightly later dates with Mark being the first at right around the time of the destruction of the temple but probably afterwards and since Mark is commoly seen as a source for the other Synoptic Gospels Mathew and Luke that would put them even later.

I still need to respond to your point about the Old Testament but first a break for a Laga 16.

Sean

Links on the Q hypothesis http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-exist.html

And a nice graphic on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

[Liechtenstein]

This is great: I've poured myself a generous dram of Lagavulin 16 and a beer chaser as well. The beer is a Bavarian import, Schneider Weisse, a wheat beer which is brewed dark. The two complement each other marvelously.

Now, to the business at hand:

The problem is that the New testament botches a fair amount of this such as The birth of Jesus in Bethlem, The two books that talk about Jesus birth give different reasons as to why they are in Bethlehem and there is no proof of a census being done as is mentioned.

1. Only the Book of Luke talks about Jesus' birth, actually. You may be refering to two different genealogies, one presented in Matthew, the other in Luke. One genealogy is matrilineal, the other, patrilineal although this is not apparent on trhe surface.

2. True, there is no record in other sources of a census being taken. This doesn't invalidate the biblical narrative, though. Up until last year, King Belshazzar (Book of Daniel) was thought to be a biblical invention until archæologists confirmed the king's existence. Archæology is still uncovering the ancient world.

An excellent and secular source for biblical archæology is Biblical Archæology Review.

http://www.bib-arch.org

There is also some proof that the bible was tinkered with thoughout the early years so that it would say what they wanted it too.

Not really. The credibility of such «proof» is on par with the credibility of the idea that the lunar landings were filmed in Arizona.

(This Laga is just exquisite!)

There are something like ancient 25,000 biblical manuscripts in existence today. Far, far, far more than of any other ancient text. By their sheer volume, those manuscripts are proof that what has come down to us is accurate and has not been tampered with.

The only inaccuracies which exist are transcriptional errors, errors by scribe coppyists so to speak. These do not change the narrative and are identifiable and known to people like me. To Conspiracy Theorists, however, they are a source of material to cast doubt on the Bible. So be it.

That's it for Sean. Now for our maker of whisky Jell-O:

1. God identifies himself with the male principle, not the female. Calling God she is a New Age practice.

Depends on your religion as Pagans (and I believe that Paganism may be older than Christianity?) worship the Godess

Yes, paganism is older than Christianity...older than Judaism as well. It is going through a resurgence now in the form of Wicca and New Age beliefs. Old doesn't mean good...haven't we all met old fools?

This beer is great as well: Schneider Weisse, made by G. Schneider & Sohn, Munich, Germany (they make BMWs in Munich also...)

My only regret is that I am not "surrounded" by y'all round a table having this discussion, with an ever depleting bottle of Lagavulin to fuel our flights of fancy!

They have Lagavulin in Heaven. My sources inform me that Hell is stocked by Canadian Club and bad batches of JW Red.

Lichtentein, isn't it a bit patronising to refer to those who wrote other texts [Koran, Vedic lit., Bhagavad-Gita, Book of Mormon...] as"fools?"

Did I say they were fools? Maybe I did...blame it on the Crown Royal I was drinking then. Actually, the religions and faiths they back up are foolish, so the texts themselves are...simply, evil. I do not have to respect a lie but I do respect the people who have been hoodwinked by a lie.

Hey, I've been guilty of spiritual snobbery, but I've given up trying to "big up" the Bible, say, or even myself, by putting down apparent competitors.

I have also been guilty of spiritual snobbery, mostly when I was an atheist. I am not a spritual snob; as I said above, I do not have to respect a lie. Why would you?

I have long been fascinated by the similarities, rather than the differences in these texts, as was my aunt, a very Christian woman who once told me that, though it didn't inspire her to change faiths, she was surprised to find her preconceptions blown by reading the Gita. what surprised her were the parallels with the Bible.

There are similarities in other «sacred» works. The differences, however are profound and irreconcilable. It is a little like being surprised that you, Sean and I all have the same colour eyes...big deal! we are each very different.

but we humans love to dwell on the differences between us, rather than the one thing we all have in common. Remember in St. Mark, when Jesus' disciples have been out doing their thing. Reporting back to the Master, they say they met a man "casting out devils" and "rebuked" him because he was not "one of us." JC blows a fuse and rebukes them! "If he was casting out devils he WAS one of us."

Yes...but you forgot to mention that the man was casting out devils in the name of Jesus...not in any other name. This is a very important part of the text. Read it again in Mark 9:38-41.

Just because you support a particular football team, or in my case a particular racing driver, doesn't mean that all the others are crap!

This analogy doesn't hold because race drivers are all human with the same goal. When we talk about God, we must determine who is real from who is fake. What is Truth, from what is Lie.

(My Laga & beer are finished!)

the word "virgin" in Greek literally means "woman of marriable age." Wow! That's one to set the cat among the pigeons!

My understanding is that there are several Greek words for «virgin» and the one used in Isaiah is the one we understand as «virgin» today.

Let us remember that the Bible was written by human beings, no different from you or I. These writers were inspired to record their experiences for the benefit of humanity. However, do you think they were exempt the social and cultural attitudes of the day? I don't think so.

True. Here is an anecdote: I have a friend who is CEO of a company with 4,500 employees. He has a secretary who has been with him for 27 years. This woman composes all his correspondence and signs his name. She knows him and his work so well that their spirits are fused.

What do you think would happen if she suddenly started writing just anything, according to her whims?

She would be fired. And that's what happened to any biblical prophet who disobeyed: he was dispatched by God subito presto.

I could go on...but my post is too long and my glasses are empty.

[pkt77242]

pkt77242 wrote:
There is also some proof that the bible was tinkered with thoughout the early years so that it would say what they wanted it too.

Not really. The credibility of such «proof» is on par with the credibility of the idea that the lunar landings were filmed in Arizona.

(This Laga is just exquisite!)

There are something like ancient 25,000 biblical manuscripts in existence today. Far, far, far more than of any other ancient text. By their sheer volume, those manuscripts are proof that what has come down to us is accurate and has not been tampered with.

The only inaccuracies which exist are transcriptional errors, errors by scribe coppyists so to speak. These do not change the narrative and are identifiable and known to people like me. To Conspiracy Theorists, however, they are a source of material to cast doubt on the Bible. So be it.

Actually, I believe you are incorrect, there have been a few major changes. Our earliest versions of the Gospel of Mark do not end the way it currently ends. The earliest version ends at Mark 16:8. Mark 16:9-20 seems to have been added later and is written in a different style. Also there have been a few different versions of the ending that have been found. That to me is a large change, we are not talking one or two words, we are talking 10+ lines being added. There are other important changes that have happened to the bible but I am not going to reprint Misquoting Jesus here, just pick up a copy (or check it out at the library) and read it.

The Bible is first a history of the Jewish people and is accurate - and has proven itself to be accurate by archæology - insofar as its historcal narrative is concerned. It also claims to be the word of God in its prophetic writings.

Ok, the Old Testament has not proven to be completely accurate. First off the Creation stories are false, and while the story of Noah and the flood may have some truthfulness (variouse cultures have stories of a flood), we are reasonable certain that the whole world was not covered in water and everyone drowned except Noah, his family and two of every animal. There is probably some truth to the flood story, just like there is some truth in the NT, but neither are by no means 100% historically accurate. I would label the Bibile closer to Historical Fiction, with a good chunk of truth thrown in, the problem lies in determing what pars are true.

Sean

[ClubSmed]

Just because you support a particular football team, or in my case a particular racing driver, doesn't mean that all the others are crap!

This analogy doesn't hold because race drivers are all human with the same goal. When we talk about God, we must determine who is real from who is fake. What is Truth, from what is Lie.

Actually I would say that it does because non of the Religious texts (as far as I am aware) have been written by a God. They have all been written by humans (Jesus did not write any of the NT) and so are liable to the same flaws and misinterpretations.
In the end it is all a question of faith in that which we cannot comprehend.
If that last statement hold water for you then as I cannot comprehend the purpose of Motor Racing or Football then they are similar to me

[Reggaeblues]

Just because you support a particular football team, or in my case a particular racing driver, doesn't mean that all the others are crap!

This analogy doesn't hold because race drivers are all human with the same goal. When we talk about God, we must determine who is real from who is fake. What is Truth, from what is Lie.

Actually I would say that it does because non of the Religious texts (as far as I am aware) have been written by a God. They have all been written by humans (Jesus did not write any of the NT) and so are liable to the same flaws and misinterpretations.
In the end it is all a question of faith in that which we cannot comprehend.
If that last statement hold water for you then as I cannot comprehend the purpose of Motor Racing or Football then they are similar to me

I quite understand! However, to illustrate my point: Football also holds no meaning for me( tho' i am a bit of a petrolhead, to say the least...)However, visiting a friend a while back, he happened to be watching his favourite team on TV, "Man U" featuring "Goldenballs" Beckham, so I graciously sat and watched for a bit . I ended up watching the whole 2nd half, simply because I was enthralled by the skill of the players. "How the f*** did he do that?" So, though not a fan, I was able to appreciate the skills and excellence involved.

Lichtenstein wrote:

"Actually, the religions and faiths they back up are foolish, so the texts themselves are...simply, evil. I do not have to respect a lie but I do respect the people who have been hoodwinked by a lie."

I'm sorry, but this attitude I find just plain sad. When I was 21, I was very lost. Abandoned by my father, undermined by my mother, abused by my boarding school headmaster. But I was reading the Bible. I was taken in by a man and his wife, an old family friend, with whom I lived for a year. He was a Buddhist and an astrologer.( No doubt warning lights are already flashing in Lichtenstein's brain!) anyway, not only did I learn a lot from him, but his hospitality, humility, kindness and generosity were beyond reproach. Yes, he knew the Bible too, and we often talked about it. He NEVER tried to convert me, but "lived" his faith through his actions, and his "being" , for want of a better word. As a Buddhist he felt it his duty to make sure i understood the teachings of Jesus. His was a pure heart, and a heart that had been "tuned" through his Buddhist faith.

If that kindness, wisdom and care, or the teachings that nurtured these qualities are a "lie" or "evil", then my mother has testicles!

[Reggaeblues]

P.S. Father's Day on sunday. My wife has asked me what I want for a present.

Anyone got any religious objections to my asking for a bottle of JW Green?

[Liechtenstein]

there have been a few major changes [in the Bible]. Our earliest versions of the Gospel of Mark do not end the way it currently ends. The earliest version ends at Mark 16:8. Mark 16:9-20 seems to have been added later and is written in a different style.

Yes, Mark 16:9-20 is a well-known add-on. It does not, however, constitute a major change. Moreover, the spirit of the addition is in keeping with the biblical message. Here is something else remarkable: Bibles identify Mark 16:9-20 as an add-on! This is what my copy of the NIV* says:

The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20

This is what my copy of The Message** says:

Note: Mark 16:9 [the portion in brackets] is contained only in later manuscripts.

So, any reader is forewarned and may skip the passages if he wants. No other «sacred» text cautions its readers as to possible errors. Even transcriptural errors are reproduced - they are not corrected! - in modern texts out of a spirit of transparency.

Unfortunately, this same spirit of transparency is used by critics to condemn the text. No original manuscript has ever been found with an error in it. None. The Bible as we have it is an accurate document reflecting what was originally written.

the Old Testament has not proven to be completely accurate.

You are at odds with modern archæology here. Archæologists and historians use the Bible as an accurate tool when determining where to dig or how to interpret the ancient world. The OT is considered an accurate account in its historical portion.

First off the Creation stories are false

They are false? where you there?! The most honest thing to say would be that they have as much credibility as the Big Bang theory...if God exists, they could be true, if God doesn't exist, is the Big Bang true? Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder has come up with a theory that adeptly marries the Big Bang/evolution with Genesis in his book Genesis and the Big Bang.

Again, the Flood story is addressed in Schroeder's book. All I'll say now is that opinion on that is divided as to whether it was global or local.

Now for Mr Whisky Jell-O,

Actually I would say that it does because non of the Religious texts (as far as I am aware) have been written by a God. They have all been written by humans (Jesus did not write any of the NT) and so are liable to the same flaws and misinterpretations.

Yes. All were written by humans, including every single word in the Bible. However, only the Bible claims to be the very Word of God over and over again. Jesus also called it the word of God:

«Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition...» -Matthew 15:6

In the end it is all a question of faith in that which we cannot comprehend.

Yes. Faith itself is a gift of God. Not everyone claims the gift.



*New International Version, a translation in modern English.
**The Message is a translation in street English.

[ClubSmed]

Actually I would say that it does because non of the Religious texts (as far as I am aware) have been written by a God. They have all been written by humans (Jesus did not write any of the NT) and so are liable to the same flaws and misinterpretations.

Yes. All were written by humans, including every single word in the Bible. However, only the Bible claims to be the very Word of God over and over again. Jesus also called it the word of God:

«Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition...» -Matthew 15:6

It is my understanding that Jesus was not around when the NT was first put together. If this is the case how can he claim it is the very word of God? Unless of course it was a prophesy.

[Liechtenstein]

Comments about Reggaeblues' posts:

Lichtenstein wrote: "Actually, the religions and faiths they back up are foolish, so the texts themselves are...simply, evil. I do not have to respect a lie but I do respect the people who have been hoodwinked by a lie."I'm sorry, but this attitude I find just plain sad. When I was 21, I was very lost. Abandoned by my father, undermined by my mother, abused by my boarding school headmaster. But I was reading the Bible. I was taken in by a man and his wife, an old family friend, with whom I lived for a year. He was a Buddhist and an astrologer.( No doubt warning lights are already flashing in Lichtenstein's brain!) anyway, not only did I learn a lot from him, but his hospitality, humility, kindness and generosity were beyond reproach. Yes, he knew the Bible too, and we often talked about it. He NEVER tried to convert me, but "lived" his faith through his actions, and his "being" , for want of a better word. As a Buddhist he felt it his duty to make sure i understood the teachings of Jesus. His was a pure heart, and a heart that had been "tuned" through his Buddhist faith.If that kindness, wisdom and care, or the teachings that nurtured these qualities are a "lie" or "evil", then my mother has testicles!

No, warning lights didn't go off in my brain!

If what you want to be is nice, kind, considerate and gentle, there are plenty of religions who will help you do that better than any of the brands of Christianity. Buddhism, Wicca, Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, Bahai...the list is long!

Religion isn't a soap that makes you a squeaky clean, all-around nice guy...but there are religions that do that, as there are religions that go the opposite way.

God - the God of the Bible - doesn't insist that you to be nice. His first request is that you recognize him as God, period. Very few are able to do that.

P.S. Father's Day on sunday. My wife has asked me what I want for a present.Anyone got any religious objections to my asking for a bottle of JW Green?

JW Green? Sounds wiccan to me!

[Liechtenstein]

It is my understanding that Jesus was not around when the NT was first put together. If this is the case how can he claim it is the very word of God? Unless of course it was a prophesy.

Jesus was refering to the Old Testament in Matthew 15:6.

As for the NT, it also claims to be the word of God through its writers and compilers. This, however, will not convince skeptics and naysayers.

I'm off to work!

[ClubSmed]

1. God identifies himself with the male principle, not the female. Calling God she is a New Age practice.

Depends on your religion as Pagans (and I believe that Paganism may be older than Christianity?) worship the Godess

Yes, paganism is older than Christianity...older than Judaism as well. It is going through a resurgence now in the form of Wicca and New Age beliefs. Old doesn't mean good...haven't we all met old fools?

I have met, and continue to meet, fools of all ages. How else do we explain to consumption of Johnny Walker Red*

*have never tried this, just the making a wild accusation

[ClubSmed]

Corinthians 6:10

"nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Ephesians 5:18

"Do not get drunk with wine, which will only ruin you; instead be filled with the Spirit."


If this counts for whisky too it does not bode well...

[Reggaeblues]

Clubsmed, My view is simple. And I trumpet simplicity to all those who look for explannations and fine detail: If you rely on any substance for your happiness, you're f*cked. I discovered years ago that I can't drink away a problem. Thank God! So if I'm down for any reason, I tend to avoid it until I;ve dealt with the problem or time has resolved it.

Again, JC did not turn wine into water!

Lichtenstein wrote: "If what you want to be is nice, kind, considerate and gentle, there are plenty of religions who will help you do that better than any of the brands of Christianity. Buddhism, Wicca, Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, Bahai...the list is long!

Religion isn't a soap that makes you a squeaky clean, all-around nice guy...but there are religions that do that, as there are religions that go the opposite way.

God - the God of the Bible - doesn't insist that you to be nice. His first request is that you recognize him as God, period. Very few are able to do that."

For God's sake, why does St. Paul list the "fruits of the spirit(not Scotch in this case!) " as being "Love, Kindness, Peace, Gentleness, Joy, Patience, Goodness..etc ?"

God IS Love. So let Love be my default, no matter how crazy I get.

God is simple. Be like a CHILD and you can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, is JC's advice. and he ain;t talking about some imaginary heaven when you die. I have chosen, being the pragmatist that I am, to see all his teachings as instuctions and precepts for THIS life, THIS moment. Works for me, everytime!

Because, here's the Truth, we cannot, in reality, but only in our minds and intellects, move one milisecond into the future or the past. Oh, but don't we try! If I'm honest, my mind spends a good deal of the day dwelling on anything but "Now." Projections, concepts, grudges...

But "now" is where I am, this breath, not the next one, THIS one. That is the Creator kissing me on the inside...without that "kiss", I wouldn't be able to write this, play guitar, taste whisky....etc.

So, when my wife kisses me, I like to respond. when the Creator kisses me with each breath, I like to respond, a hundred times a day if I can, by remembering that breath. which brings me quickly back to the reality of the gift of being alive. The one thing I live to feel.

As JC said: "The Kingdom of God is within you." Amen. And yet, even that has beej=n tampered with! modern Bibles often say "..among you!"

B*llocks! Amazing how we're afraid of the truth of who we are...

And that is the key. 'God' is that simple. That close. And that is what the Gospels are trying to say. And i'm sorry, other scriptures say it too.

And once you have found that Kingdom, there is one way to improve upon it:

Celebrate Life...with a large Lagavulin!

...which leads to another conversation about "child...heaven...underage drinking!!!!!"

[Liechtenstein]

Corinthians 6:10

"nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Ephesians 5:18

"Do not get drunk with wine, which will only ruin you; instead be filled with the Spirit."


If this counts for whisky too it does not bode well...

This is about drunkenness, not drinking. You will find many Protestant denominations that frown on all alcohol consumption, especially in the USA. There are probably cultural/historical reasons why Americans have such views. Orthodox, Catholic and Messianic Jews have no such hang ups about alcohol.

Again, JC did not turn wine into water!

Amen to that! He turned water into WINE from which we make BRANDY which is a type of WHISKY!!! (or is that the other way around?)

For God's sake, why does St. Paul list the "fruits of the spirit(not Scotch in this case!) " as being "Love, Kindness, Peace, Gentleness, Joy, Patience, Goodness..etc ?"

Those are indeed the fruits of a righteous person who lives according to the word of God. In other words, God comes first, then He gives you the ability to bear the fruit that you will be rewarded for. As for the apparent good deeds that non-believers do, God nothing good to say:

-For there is not a just man who doesn't sin upon the earth. -Ecclesiastes 7:20

-The Lord looks down from heaven...all have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. - Psalm 14:2-3

Lastly, from God himself, read Matthew 19:16-26 which is the story of the rich young man. In this narrative, Jesus works backwards, showing that the rich man has done good deeds, obeyed the Mosaic Law and yet they will not get him God's favour. He's still toast!

God IS Love. So let Love be my default, no matter how crazy I get.

Love, yes; he's also Just. The rich young man didn't get into heaven because of God's justice.

God is simple. Be like a CHILD and you can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, is JC's advice. and he ain;t talking about some imaginary heaven when you die. I have chosen, being the pragmatist that I am, to see all his teachings as instuctions and precepts for THIS life, THIS moment. Works for me, everytime!

God's requirements are simple, yes.

And that is the key. 'God' is that simple. That close. And that is what the Gospels are trying to say. And i'm sorry, other scriptures say it too.

Other sacred texts may claim simplicity but they are not the word of God, period. Just like there are other women that you may be attracted to but only your wife is your wife. She was chosen by you as a mate. All others are off-limits.

The Jewish people are the Chosen People and they were chosen to bring the Word to the world, none of the others.

Sorry, that's the simple truth...!

I must get back to work!

[Reggaeblues]

Who are you to say that they were any less God inspired, God breathed, than the Bible?

My experience tells me different. but it seems experience counts for little in the face of traditional, religiously imposed labels, like "Word Of God" which is just a man made definition anyway.

To preclude or diss another source of wisdom just because it does not have the religious rubber stamp of "Christianity" on it....THAT is foolishness.

children don't need rubber stamping. but we try anyway...

Let me ask you two things. Are you familiar with Pastor Rick Warren? What is your take on his writings?

Two: Those who wrote the Bible, what did THEY read? Because, whatever it was, isn't that what we should be reading?

Clue: It wasn't a book!

Time for something cask strength methinks...then bed.

[Liechtenstein]

Who are you to say that they were any less God inspired, God breathed, than the Bible?

I'm a nobody. I'm just telling you what is in the Bible, don't get angry at me! Get angry at God because he said,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God....John 1:1-8

I won't quote all 8 verses, you can read them for yourself in your text and see that they refer to Jesus.

Now, Jesus calls himself God in this exchange:

«I tell you the truth,» Jesus answered, «before Abraham was born, I am.» John 8:58

Jesus is directly refering to God's name here, «I am» which was first revealed to Moses (see Exodus 3:14) some 2000 years earlier.

Other texts can't be the word of God because they teach contradictory things. Islam - for instance - has Jesus as a great prophet, not God himself. JW say Jesus was God's first creation; Mormons say Jesus is this planet's local god, Hindus say he's an avatar (guru), Buddhists say he's an Enlightened Teacher...and so on. There is only one truth and numerous lies...not one lie and numerous truths! Think about that!

You said the truth is simple. I agreed with you...are you now telling me that it is far more complex?

My experience tells me different. but it seems experience counts for little in the face of traditional, religiously imposed labels, like "Word Of God" which is just a man made definition anyway.

Religion of all types are crap; I said this at the very beginning of this thread. That includes Christian expressions in religions. I also said that God hates religion - this is biblical - and I agreed with your nun friend that religion is an insult to God. Why are you now defending religions from other faiths???

Let me ask you two things. Are you familiar with Pastor Rick Warren? What is your take on his writings?

Vaguely...I vaguely know about Warren. I avoid hocus-pocus religious types, types who heal you, make you rich, make you happy...it's all a cartload of manure to me. The biblical message has nothing to do with making you happy, healthy and rich.

Two: Those who wrote the Bible, what did THEY read? Because, whatever it was, isn't that what we should be reading?

They either read scrolls on which the Tanach (what we call the OT) was written out by copyists, or the majority heard the Word from the Levite priests and prophets. Jews - like virtually everybody - had a fascination for false worship and were constantly attracted to it.

Look around...things haven't changed!

I had a great beer earlier this evening. Something that came from Poland...let me get the can... «FAXE» I nevcer heard of it. I'm going to pour myself a Crown Royal now...Cheers!

[pkt77242]

Reggaeblues wrote:
Who are you to say that they were any less God inspired, God breathed, than the Bible?

I'm a nobody. I'm just telling you what is in the Bible, don't get angry at me! Get angry at God because he said,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God....John 1:1-8

I won't quote all 8 verses, you can read them for yourself in your text and see that they refer to Jesus.

Now, Jesus calls himself God in this exchange:

«I tell you the truth,» Jesus answered, «before Abraham was born, I am.» John 8:58

Jesus is directly refering to God's name here, «I am» which was first revealed to Moses (see Exodus 3:14) some 2000 years earlier.

Other texts can't be the word of God because they teach contradictory things. Islam - for instance - has Jesus as a great prophet, not God himself. JW say Jesus was God's first creation; Mormons say Jesus is this planet's local god, Hindus say he's an avatar (guru), Buddhists say he's an Enlightened Teacher...and so on. There is only one truth and numerous lies...not one lie and numerous truths! Think about that!

Shouldn't RB be angry with the people who wrote the bible. As I remember God nor Jesus wrote the bible. Also just because the other texts teach contradictory things doens't mean they are wrong, what if the bible is wrong. You start with the assumption that the bible is 100% accurate and so anything that doesn't match is incorrect. What if the bible is the one that is wrong. You can't use the bible to prove the bible, you have to have confirmation from outside sources.

I would like to see your proof that the Bible is the word of God, while many people may believe it is but that doesn't make it a fact. For a very long time people believe that the world was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth.

Sean

[Reggaeblues]

Thankyou Sean!

I'm starting to feel like a man enjoying his favourite whisky, and being told no, I'm wrong. It's a terrible whisky - the Bible says so!

I used to love the old Bowmore Darkest. Jim Murray, who wrote the true Bible(if you're a whisky lover) gave it 63 and hated it!

That surprised me, but it didn't change my enjoyment or opinion of that whisky.

Lichtenstein, if the Bible is not about happiness then what is it about? The reason the world is messed up is because unhappy people, in conflict with themselves, create wars with other people and nations. Surely, if the Bible does not address this, then "Word Of God" or not, it's a useless tool!

I actually find it does address this. Those teachings I have investigated and taken to heart, and applied, DO work.

But I don't take it literally. I mean, who needs Leviticus? who needs to burn a cow in their front yard to make an odour pleasing to the Lord? It sure as eggs won't be pleasing to my neighbours!

No, It's a springboard to MY understanding. MY walk. 'Cos nobody else can walk my walk, and I am free to take my fuel from whatever pump I choose. If it gets me to my destination...

And if life isn't about happiness, why drink whisky?

I saw this sign in a pub:"Beer is proof God loves you!"

Anyway, I discovered through my own experience, and nothing else, that "Word" actually means "Breath". This discovery was validated when I met my wife who has a degree in Comparitive Religion, studied the origins of the Bible, and told me without knowing about my discovery, that in the earliest translations "word " was indeed "breath"!

But I knew that already. Then I heard a vicar give a sermon, who said. "The other day a girl asked me how she could get closer to God. I said,how can you get closer or furthur to God when He's with you all the time in the form of the Holy Spirit, which is this breath?" I nearly fell off me pew! i thought "At last! A Christian who understands this!" "

I find when I contemplate this breath long and often enough, it absolutely waters the flowers that Paul lists...it brings me right back to the APPRECIATION of being alive, now! It brings me back to Joy, Peace. Love . Kindness , etc. This Breath is my God-given compass, when my mind is all over the shop, or I just need a moment of silence...my "refresh" button.

People do rosaries etc. amazing! We have one inbuilt!

Check this out. I have a friend ,a "Born-Again Christian" he calls himself, who studies with a Franciscan Monk, who in turn studies Buddhist meditation! My friend said he has learned so much from this guy.

some things in life have no logic. Better get used to it!

I have another friend, an Anglican bishop as it happens, who wrote that it is a mistake to offer the judgment that the Bible is the "word of God" until someone has had a chance to read and contemplate the text for themselves...

That is wisdom.

"First experience, THEN believe..." I say.

How often have I discovered this to be true when tasting a brilliant new whisky?

As it is with whisky, so it is with life!

[Liechtenstein]

As I remember God nor Jesus wrote the bible.

Actually, this is incorrect because Jesus referred to God as author of the Bible when he said, «Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.» Jesus also said when lambasting the religious leaders, «...you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.»

In my previous post, I gave two references where Jesus claimed outright to be God. Besides that, innumerable references in the OT & NT speak of the scriptures as the Word of God.

So, we have this:

1. Jesus claims to be God.
2. The biblical text itself claims to be the word of God.

So who authored it? A bunch of Jewish men, save one (Luke). Some were prophets, some were kings, some were shepherds, some were theives, most were ordinary men. If you take the time to read through their works, you will frequently come across phrases like, Thus says the Lord, The Lord Almighty says, and so on.

So, now we can add:

3. the human authors thought they were God's mouthpiece.

And we may deduct that Jesus himself gave credibility to the Tanach (The OT) and the NT because he said, «Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away.»

You start with the assumption that the bible is 100% accurate and so anything that doesn't match is incorrect.

Not really. I started out - like you - with the assumption that the Bible was 0% accurate. I was an atheist from my early teens until my early 40s. I wasn't just some run-of-the-mill atheist, I read atheist books, refused to celebrate religious holidays, refused gifts given to me on the occasion of those holidays, I attended atheist meetings and was active in Ayn Rand's Objectivist seminars and a bunch of other really deep atheist stuff.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible, you have to have confirmation from outside sources.

Outside sources: that's why I gave you a link to Biblical Archæology Review, a secular (non-religious) - serious - magazine about biblical archæology.

As a former atheist, I really can appreciate the allure of books like Misquoting Jesus because I used to feed on them. But, they are like getting all your information from The National Enquirer. Don't you deserve better? (That's like drinking Scoresby Scotch all the time! Canadian Club tastes like Laga compared to that siht!)

Shouldn't RB be angry with the people who wrote the bible.

Yes, Reggaeblues is angry with the author of the Bible and so are you. I'm OK with that. Reggae has adopted New Age ideas (all religions are roads to God) and you have chosen atheism/agnosticism.

Both of you are quite lucky as your respective faiths have much more credibility than mine!

[pkt77242]

f

pkt77242 wrote:
Shouldn't RB be angry with the people who wrote the bible.

Yes, Reggaeblues is angry with the author of the Bible and so are you. I'm OK with that. Reggae has adopted New Age ideas (all religions are roads to God) and you have chosen atheism/agnosticism.

Both of you are quite lucky as your respective faiths have much more credibility than mine!

Liechtenstein, I had to laugh when I saw this, as I am actually Catholic and at one time I considered (and to this day still think about it) becoming a priest . If priests could marry, you would be calling me Father Sean. I don't believe that the Bible is literal, but I do believe in the message (love thy neighbor, we are our brothers keeper, feed the poor, treat the sick, etc.). Sorry to disappoint you.

Sean