# United Martial Artists for Christ



## Tames D (Aug 14, 2016)

Does anyone here have experience with this organization? If so, will you share? Thank you.
Karate, Martial Arts, Christian Karate - Christian Martial Arts - For Youth and Families


----------



## elder999 (Aug 14, 2016)

*PSALM 144:1*

Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle
(oshitodear )


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 14, 2016)

I'm not a fan of this kind of approach.  I guess to each his own.  If religion and martial arts are both shared interests, then like-minded people will come together.

I would never be part of something like this.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 14, 2016)

What is a Bible based ministry as opposed to any other kind?


----------



## Tames D (Aug 14, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not a fan of this kind of approach.  I guess to each his own.  If religion and martial arts are both shared interests, then like-minded people will come together.
> 
> I would never be part of something like this.


I tend to feel the same way. I'm just curious how this org works. Bob Mitchell is a reputable martial artist. I know he was a bad *** in his younger day.


----------



## Tames D (Aug 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> *What is a Bible based ministry as opposed to any other kind*?


Hey, I'm asking the questions here. Your job is to answer them.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 14, 2016)

I don't the message of the Bible is to knock people out. Unless the nuns in catholic school forgot to mention that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 14, 2016)

I don't like groups like this.  It's not the religion part that gets me, it's the "overboard paranoid" assumptions that bother me. For example, straight from their website: Karate - Martial Arts - Christian Martial Artists - Martial Artists for Christ
2. Be wary of a class that emphasizes meditation and breathing exercises.
3. Avoid instructors who claim to be able to teach "spiritual" principles like chi or ki and "internal powers.
4. You don't have to take lessons from only Christian instructors if you feel comfortable that your teacher takes a purely, "secular" approach, but you might want to share your own faith with him. 

There nothing wrong with meditation and breathing exercises.  There are 1000 reasons why someone would meditate and do breathing exercises.  If a person expects to have better control over their body then they will need some sort of meditation and breathing exercises.  Just because there is meditation and breathing exercises doesn't mean that there's a religious connection to it, especially when it comes to any thing that requires demanding physical activity.

Avoid instructors who claim to be able to teach "spiritual" principles like chi or ki and "internal powers"  Ok here are 3 different things that aren't related. Chi is not a spiritual principle. Learning to manipulate the energy in one's body is no different from people who have learn to increase or decrease their heart rate at will. Or how some people are able to control how their body copes with pain.  Internal powers I can understand because there are people who make it seem as if they can fight off 20 people all at once with some magical force or supernatural power.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't the message of the Bible is to knock people out. Unless the nuns in catholic school forgot to mention that.


The nuns at my school _*practiced *_that.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 14, 2016)

Catholic nuns taught the Filipinos Kali.


----------



## Tames D (Aug 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The nuns at my school _*practiced *_that.


We had nun of that at my school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2016)

Tames D said:


> We had nun of that at my school.


Why can't I mark this "funny" and "don't like" at the same time?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 14, 2016)

Not my cup of tea, but to each his own


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Aug 14, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't think the message of the Bible is to knock people out. Unless the nuns in catholic school forgot to mention that.



Why would you say that? Have you read any of the Old Testament Bible stories? It's full of warriors. King David was called "The Apple (pupil) of God's eye" and he was a mighty warrior who killed many men including a giant warrior who stood over 9 feet tall.
Sampson is reputed to have killed around a thousand men while his only weapon was an old jawbone that he found.

There are lots of stories about "men of God" who were mighty fighters who defeated and/or killed enemies.


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The nuns at my school _*practiced *_that.



The Sister's of St. Joseph, aka, "The Samurai Nuns". I remember still a chalk board pointer being broken over my head lol.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 14, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't like groups like this.  It's not the religion part that gets me, it's the "overboard paranoid" assumptions that bother me. For example, straight from their website: Karate - Martial Arts - Christian Martial Artists - Martial Artists for Christ
> 2. Be wary of a class that emphasizes meditation and breathing exercises.
> 3. Avoid instructors who claim to be able to teach "spiritual" principles like chi or ki and "internal powers.
> 4. You don't have to take lessons from only Christian instructors if you feel comfortable that your teacher takes a purely, "secular" approach, but you might want to share your own faith with him.
> ...



Being a lapsed Catholic and someone who now, if forced to describe their practice, follows a path that combines Buddhist and Confucian principles, I can explain the problem.  I once had a talk with a family friend who is a Priest and he explained the issue this way when I tried to argue that eastern and western practices were compatible.  At the time I was still a practicing Catholic but had started meditation as a form of stress relief.

When one meditates, he said, in the Eastern method one is looking within for peace within ones self.  However peace can only be found through God.  One can not simply meditate in order to recognize ones true conditions, to "simply" allow negative emotion to wash away so that we can not only be better people ourselves but to then likewise treat others with more respect.  No amount of meditation, he said, can melt away the Sin that separates us from each other, God and true peace.

The Bible, he said, even commands us to meditate but it commands us to mediate upon the Word of God and to reflect upon the Sins that seperate us from him.

Then, by extension, anything that is born of meditation is contrary to Biblical Teaching.  We can not cultivate inner strength (Chi) alone, such strength is born from accepting God into your heart etc., etc, etc.

It gets even more touchy when you talk about finding enlightenment within.  A standard retort is "if you could find enlightenment within Christ would not have been sent to us, the only path to enlightenment is through accepting Jesus Christ."

I agree with you, there should be a difference, bit Christian Theologians says otherwise.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

Tames D said:


> Does anyone here have experience with this organization? If so, will you share? Thank you.
> Karate, Martial Arts, Christian Karate - Christian Martial Arts - For Youth and Families




The idea behind it is as I noted above.  Eastern mediation; the idea of looking within for peace, cultivating inner strength by looking within ourselves, in some forms seeking enlightenment with the same method, is seen as counter to Biblical teaching where in peace can only be found by accepting our sinful nature, peace, inner strength and enlightenment only through God and Christ.

You can actually see this dichotomy somewhere else.  In Eastern Philosophies the Problems plaguing mankind are not the result of Sin, they are a result of not accepting our true natures and understanding our place in the world.  Solving these problems are part of most meditative traditions (Yoga, Buddhism, Neo-Confucianism etc).  This is reflected in the difference between the way the ideas say we should function.  The 10 Commandments say "though Shalt not..." where as The Principles of Buddhism in the 8 Fold Path are simply "Right understanding, right thoughts..." etc. Confuscianism central principle is WAY too wordily explained (read the Analects some day lol) but can be summed up by simple saying "the Brotherhood of Humanity".  So Christianity is focused on Sin, "thou shalt not".  Eastern Philosophies are focused on learning your place, hence "Right..."

PS sorry for all the Philosophical stuff if it annoys.  My first line of education was in History and Philosophy.  When you were taught in Catholic Schools for 12 years, you can't help but throw the above into the Philosophy basket lol


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 15, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> Why would you say that? Have you read any of the Old Testament Bible stories? It's full of warriors. King David was called "The Apple (pupil) of God's eye" and he was a mighty warrior who killed many men including a giant warrior who stood over 9 feet tall.
> Sampson is reputed to have killed around a thousand men while his only weapon was an old jawbone that he found.
> 
> There are lots of stories about "men of God" who were mighty fighters who defeated and/or killed enemies.
> ...



It was not so much that they were warriors. It was WHY they were. This feels like it focuses to much and the what and not so much as to the why.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> It was not so much that they were warriors. It was WHY they were. This feels like it focuses to much and the what and not so much as to the why.



This is pretty much it.  Yes they were Warriors.  Heck if you look at what happens once the Jews reach Canaan the Jews literally commit a Genocide.  Why?  Because God willed it.  This, and the History of "Christian" Warriors in the Crusades or in putting down "Heretical" movements is also to often glossed over unless you actually study History vs get taught it in High School.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

Double post


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 15, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not my cup of tea, but to each his own


Yeah. I consider myself a Christian and sites like that make me nervous.


Juany118 said:


> Being a lapsed Catholic and someone who now, if forced to describe their practice, follows a path that combines Buddhist and Confucian principles, I can explain the problem.  I once had a talk with a family friend who is a Priest and he explained the issue this way when I tried to argue that eastern and western practices were compatible.  At the time I was still a practicing Catholic but had started meditation as a form of stress relief.
> 
> When one meditates, he said, in the Eastern method one is looking within for peace within ones self.  However peace can only be found through God.  One can not simply meditate in order to recognize ones true conditions, to "simply" allow negative emotion to wash away so that we can not only be better people ourselves but to then likewise treat others with more respect.  No amount of meditation, he said, can melt away the Sin that separates us from each other, God and true peace.
> 
> ...


Thanks that paints a worse picture for me. Lol.  From your statements, it seems that they are confusing new age meditation with martial arts meditation. I'm Christian and I've never thought of using meditation to wash away sins. I thought that's what prayer is for. Sometimes I think groups like that would be better served if they spent more time describing what they do and how they do certain things and less time defining themselves by what they are against.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah. I consider myself a Christian and sites like that make me nervous.
> 
> Thanks that paints a worse picture for me. Lol.  From your statements, it seems that they are confusing new age meditation with martial arts meditation. I'm Christian and I've never thought of using meditation to wash away sins. I thought that's what prayer is for. Sometimes I think groups like that would be better served if they spent more time describing what they do and how they do certain things and less time defining themselves by what they are against.



I agree with you entirely but there is a fact.  Eastern mediation is founded in the Faiths of the East.  Now I started my Zen Meditation as a practicing Catholic, I saw no contradiction.  I was finding peace, my center, before I started practicing Aikido.  However, to the Christian theologian, coming to peace, to terms with yourself, outside of the ideas Sin/God in the path to peace... Is a dangerous concept.

That conversation is what brought about my concept.  By using the definitions told to me by people trained specifically in the faith I wasn't one so... Yeah gotta love preachers.  If something has an origin in a different faith it is, to them, by definition, tainted.  Hence why I define my beliefs on my own terms now.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I agree with you entirely but there is a fact.  Eastern mediation is founded in the Faiths of the East.  Now I started my Zen Meditation as a practicing Catholic, I saw no contradiction.  I was finding peace, my center, before I started practicing Aikido.  However, to the Christian theologian, coming to peace, to terms with yourself, outside of the ideas Sin/God in the path to peace... Is a dangerous concept.
> 
> That conversation is what brought about my concept.  By using the definitions told to me by people trained specifically in the faith I wasn't one so... Yeah gotta love preachers.  If something has an origin in a different faith it is, to them, by definition, tainted.  Hence why I define my beliefs on my own terms now.


To the Christian theologian you spoke to maybe. Some of the ones whom I've talked to actually encourage meditation (they view inner peace and washing away sin/peace with God as two different things). Of course, you stated that the one you talked to was catholic, while I am Lutheran and most of the Christian scholars that I know are methodist, so that might have something to do with it.


----------



## WaterGal (Aug 15, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't like groups like this.  It's not the religion part that gets me, it's the "overboard paranoid" assumptions that bother me. For example, straight from their website: Karate - Martial Arts - Christian Martial Artists - Martial Artists for Christ
> 2. Be wary of a class that emphasizes meditation and breathing exercises.
> 3. Avoid instructors who claim to be able to teach "spiritual" principles like chi or ki and "internal powers.
> 4. You don't have to take lessons from only Christian instructors if you feel comfortable that your teacher takes a purely, "secular" approach, but you might want to share your own faith with him.



Noooo, don't "witness" to your martial arts teacher.  That's always so awkward.

I don't necessarily have problem with an organization for martial artists who happen to be Christian, because there are all kinds of niche organizations out there for different special interests like that. But I think that kind of approach _can _lead to insularity and divisiveness.

In my opinion, one of the great things about activities like martial arts is that it transcends boundaries of nation, religion, race, gender, class, etc and can lead to people connecting in ways they never would have otherwise.  If we all spend our times off in our little group of people just like us, how can we see our common humanity and grow as individuals or a society?


----------



## WaterGal (Aug 15, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> To the Christian theologian you spoke to maybe. Some of the ones whom I've talked to actually encourage meditation (they view inner peace and washing away sin/peace with God as two different things). Of course, you stated that the one you talked to was catholic, while I am Lutheran and most of the Christian scholars that I know are methodist, so that might have something to do with it.



Huh.  My first exposure to meditation was actually in my Methodist youth group.  IIRC, we were encouraged to meditate on concepts like love and compassion (rather than the clearing-the-mind or mindfulness approaches), which is pretty much exactly also a thing that some Buddhists do.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 15, 2016)

WaterGal said:


> Huh.  My first exposure to meditation was actually in my UMUC youth group.  IIRC, we were encouraged to meditate on concepts like love and compassion (rather than the clearing-the-mind or mindfulness approaches), which is pretty much exactly also a thing that some Buddhists do.


I have seen Christians do both the type your talking about and the mindfulness type. None that I know seem to find a contradiction between either type and meditation with a focus on God.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> This is pretty much it.  Yes they were Warriors.  Heck if you look at what happens once the Jews reach Canaan the Jews literally commit a Genocide.  Why?  Because God willed it.  This, and the History of "Christian" Warriors in the Crusades or in putting down "Heretical" movements is also to often glossed over unless you actually study History vs get taught it in High School.



If you are a Christian most believe that God willed it because the caanites were evil and threatened the Jews. Now whether you believe it or not is up to you, and I won't argue with you about it. Just because there are warriors in the Bible does not mean that the entire Bible is about that.

I feel like this type of outlook focuses too much on a small part of it. It's like if I were to take for example the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and fixate specifically on homosexuality.

That would be foolish because in that story the people of those cities did far worse things. Lawmen would attack people and then fine them for bleeding on the sidewalk, rich people would gloat about their wealth to the poor and rub it in that they had everything while they had nothing. They would even give them gold ingots with their crests inscribed into them. No merchants would take trade them though because they had assumed they had stolen the gold. 

The person essentially staved to death while they were technically rich, the rich person would then loot their body and take their gold back.

So to fixate on homosexuality is like to fixate on Charles Mansons drug use, sure he did drugs, but the fact he was a murderous psychopath is far worse than dropping some LSD.

Anyway that's my take on this, they are taking a small part of a story and fixated too much on it when the entire message is not be a warrior and beat people up, but about being a better all around human being.


----------



## Buka (Aug 15, 2016)

What we need now is a _United Protestant Karate Fighters Union_ and a _Jews for Kumite_ group, _Muslims for Muay Thai_, the _ Jehova Jump Kickers_, and, of course, the _Buddhist Bad Asses_. Hell, we can host a tournament, I'll gladly ref.

I hope nobody takes my comment as blasphemous, just funnin' a bit.  Let's all pull the trigger for Jesus, shall we?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 15, 2016)

Buka said:


> What we need now is a _United Protestant Karate Fighters Union_ and a _Jews for Kumite_ group, _Muslims for Muay Thai_, the _ Jehova Jump Kickers_, and, of course, the _Buddhist Bad Asses_. Hell, we can host a tournament, I'll gladly ref.
> 
> I hope nobody takes my comment as blasphemous, just funnin' a bit.  Let's all pull the trigger for Jesus, shall we?



Rastas for Randori. Judo for Jesuits. I can't think of anymore.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 15, 2016)

WaterGal said:


> teacher. That's always so awkward.



My sifu is a Christian and he talks about it sometimes but he never preaches about it. My older sifu from American Kenpo never spoke of his faith or lack of it, I have no clue what his faith was.

One thing that bugged me about one of the tournaments we went to which was hosted by Marc Unger held had a few minutes of prayer before the tournament began. We were not forced to pray but some individuals would give us dirty looks if we did not. Sifu was one of those who did not pray and one man told him "you are sitting a poor example for your students." He said to him " we are here for kumite and not for cathecism."

I agree with him entirely. I don't mind a moment of silence to pray, I just don't like when you host it as something optional but negatively judge people for excersicing the choice to not do it.

If that's the case then only invite Christians to your tournament if you have such an issue with non Christians, or people who simply don't pray before the kumite.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 15, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> My sifu is a Christian and he talks about it sometimes but he never preaches about it. My older sifu from American Kenpo never spoke of his faith or lack of it, I have no clue what his faith was.
> 
> One thing that bugged me about one of the tournaments we went to which was hosted by Marc Unger held had a few minutes of prayer before the tournament began. We were not forced to pray but some individuals would give us dirty looks if we did not. Sifu was one of those who did not pray and one man told him "you are sitting a poor example for your students." He said to him " we are here for kumite and not for cathecism."
> 
> ...


Personally I have nothing against religion and have no problem joining in if someone says a prayer and I like to believe there's an afterlife once we're dead since I've lost people and that thought is comforting but I'm just not into that whole thing where people put god before everything and anything like they can't even go out with a girl they like because it's forbidden or people who bad stuff and say it's in their gods name (that happens in a lot of religions) I'm a big believer in we make our own choices and deal with our own consequences no one else to blame or to use as an excuse we're the ones who control what we do not any gods. Like if I win a match it's because I'm better on the day or I worked harder not because god chose me to win.
That's not to insult any religious people that's just my beliefs if you're religious and that's what you believe good on you you believe what you believe. At the end of the day none of us knows what happens when our times up so all our opinions and beliefs all have equal value.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 15, 2016)

I'm a diest. I believe in a god and afterlife but don't follow any particular religion. I just try to be less stupid each passing day.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 15, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I'm a diest. I believe in a god and afterlife but don't follow any particular religion. I just try to be less stupid each passing day.


Yeah? How's that going for you?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 15, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> Yeah? How's that going for you?



It's difficult but I will keep trying, after all if I quit then that will guarantee failure.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Aug 15, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> It's difficult but I will keep trying, after all if I quit then that will guarantee failure.


I'm sure, I was just messing with you  sifu not had to kick your **** again yet?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 15, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> I'm sure, I was just messing with you  sifu not had to kick your **** again yet?



He has but not because he had to. It was to teach me how to block better and after a couple of times getting punched in the face and the ribs I got a little better then before.


----------



## Tames D (Aug 15, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> It's difficult but I will keep trying, after all if I quit then that will guarantee failure.


Do they have a confessional booth?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Aug 15, 2016)

Tames D said:


> Do they have a confessional booth?



I'm not allowed in there anymore.


----------



## Tames D (Aug 15, 2016)

Buka said:


> What we need now is a _United Protestant Karate Fighters Union_ and a _Jews for Kumite_ group, _Muslims for Muay Thai_, the _ Jehova Jump Kickers_, and, of course, the _Buddhist Bad Asses_. Hell, we can host a tournament, I'll gladly ref.
> 
> I hope nobody takes my comment as blasphemous, just funnin' a bit.  Let's all pull the trigger for Jesus, shall we?


Although perhaps not based on spirituality, we can add a WKF to compliment the BKF.


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 15, 2016)

I once had a prospective new student tell me that he couldn't do the bowing because it was too close to idol worship, and he couldn't do mokuso (moment of meditation before and after class) because it was against his religion. I told him "I would never require you to do anything that you thought went against your religion" as I walked him out the door.


----------



## WaterGal (Aug 15, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> My sifu is a Christian and he talks about it sometimes but he never preaches about it. My older sifu from American Kenpo never spoke of his faith or lack of it, I have no clue what his faith was.
> 
> One thing that bugged me about one of the tournaments we went to which was hosted by Marc Unger held had a few minutes of prayer before the tournament began. We were not forced to pray but some individuals would give us dirty looks if we did not. Sifu was one of those who did not pray and one man told him "you are sitting a poor example for your students." He said to him " we are here for kumite and not for cathecism."
> 
> ...



I'd be pretty uncomfortable going to a martial arts event that had prayer in it too.  I don't have any problem with people praying before they train or compete, but when you have an official group prayer as part of your event, even if you say it's optional, it can lead to the kind of uncomfortable situation you're talking about.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 15, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> I once had a prospective new student tell me that he couldn't do the bowing because it was too close to idol worship, and he couldn't do mokuso (moment of meditation before and after class) because it was against his religion. I told him "I would never require you to do anything that you thought went against your religion" as I walked him out the door.


I never thought about it, but depending on what you are bowing to, it IS very close to idol worship, especially to someone with a western mind. Don't really see the issue with mokuso though


----------



## Tames D (Aug 15, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> I never thought about it, but depending on what you are bowing to, it IS very close to idol worship, especially to someone with a western mind. Don't really see the issue with mokuso though


I never saw Bowing as idol worship. I think it's a better way to greet a person and to show respect, than to touch their hand. I would prefer Bowing to be our custom rather than shaking hands.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 15, 2016)

Tames D said:


> I never saw Bowing as idol worship. I think it's a better way to greet a person and to show respect, than to touch their hand.


Im thinking more of bowing to the picture of the founder, like the bowing to kano jigoro that they did at the judo club I went to. Bowing to each other would just be respect. I always thought of it as tradition and honoring the ancestor type thing, but could definitely see it appearing as idol worship.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> To the Christian theologian you spoke to maybe. Some of the ones whom I've talked to actually encourage meditation (they view inner peace and washing away sin/peace with God as two different things). Of course, you stated that the one you talked to was catholic, while I am Lutheran and most of the Christian scholars that I know are methodist, so that might have something to do with it.



Well even the one I talked to said meditation is good but the focus should be on scripture.  Say a Psalm that has personal meaning to you.  You should also meditate on your Sins/failings.  His point was that you don't look for the absolution or whatever through yourself, that we can't fix spiritual issues on our own, but only through God.  Our conversation was more than "can I meditate" it actually lasted a couple hours over a bottle of Wild Turkey lol.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> If you are a Christian most believe that God willed it because the caanites were evil and threatened the Jews. Now whether you believe it or not is up to you, and I won't argue with you about it. Just because there are warriors in the Bible does not mean that the entire Bible is about that.
> 
> I feel like this type of outlook focuses too much on a small part of it. It's like if I were to take for example the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and fixate specifically on homosexuality.
> 
> ...



My only point was to show that they were not simply Warriors but Warriors who engaged in Warfare on a level we arguably didn't even see in WWII.

As my original course of study, as I said, was History and Philosophy, when I look at History I do not make moral judgements regarding wars past.  I simply look at the tactics and strategies used.  If we start making moral judgements we get into all sorts of murky territory.  First it starts with the age old cliché "the victor writes the history".  Due to this the possibility of propoganada, then the circular arguments of "well yeah Nation A may have done X but Nation B did Y."

Just look at WWII.  Yes the Allies were the "good guys" but the Bomber Pilots who fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo lived long enough to see their missions become something we would call a War Crime if it was done today.  I am not a fan of those kind of arguments.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Well even the one I talked to said meditation is good but the focus should be on scripture.  Say a Psalm that has personal meaning to you.  You should also meditate on your Sins/failings.  His point was that you don't look for the absolution or whatever through yourself, that we can't fix spiritual issues on our own, but only through God.  Our conversation was more than "can I meditate" it actually lasted a couple hours over a bottle of Wild Turkey lol.


Yeah, I gathered that...the people whom I've talked to about the topic would still disagree. They would suggest that there are two ways to meditate: One focusing on God (which would be through scripture or outward signs) and another one through looking inward. In a way this is still focused on God as I believe the argument (it's been years since I've actually discussed it in depth) was that the holy spirit is inside everyone, so if you are working on yourself and trying to improve your own spirituality you are unconsciously using the holy spirit to do so. Very different idea philosophically than eastern religions, but in practice this meditation (the one focusing on self, not on God) is almost exactly the same as some eastern meditations.

Again, I have no clue if this is the prevailing theory or not. It was very popular with the Methodists I knew who were studying christian theology, and when I brought it up to my own pastor (different denomination and different state) he agreed with it. I could easily see Catholics or other denominations disagreeing with this idea though.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 15, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> I once had a prospective new student tell me that he couldn't do the bowing because it was too close to idol worship


Kung Fu gets that all the time.  The eastern bow doesn't have the same meaning as the western bow.  The western bow means you submit fully and is seen as a weakness.  President Obama was raked over the coals for bowing lol.  The bow that is done in Martial Arts is a respect thing and not an idol worship thing.  The concept of is totally lost on many in western societies, which is ironic because people in the U.S. do it all the time with roadside memorials.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> Yeah, I gathered that...the people whom I've talked to about the topic would still disagree. They would suggest that there are two ways to meditate: One focusing on God (which would be through scripture or outward signs) and another one through looking inward. In a way this is still focused on God as I believe the argument (it's been years since I've actually discussed it in depth) was that the holy spirit is inside everyone, so if you are working on yourself and trying to improve your own spirituality you are unconsciously using the holy spirit to do so. Very different idea philosophically than eastern religions, but in practice this meditation (the one focusing on self, not on God) is almost exactly the same as some eastern meditations.
> 
> Again, I have no clue if this is the prevailing theory or not. It was very popular with the Methodists I knew who were studying christian theology, and when I brought it up to my own pastor (different denomination and different state) he agreed with it. I could easily see Catholics or other denominations disagreeing with this idea though.



I think you may have a point.  In my reading the Methodist Church is, in many ways, the most Liberal Organized Christian Church in the US.  There are even a few articles that I have read that address that as it has liberalized it's theology they have seen a reduction in participation.  So it seems we are seeing am example of the divide we are seeing between Conservative and Liberal theological views.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 15, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Kung Fu gets that all the time.  The eastern bow doesn't have the same meaning as the western bow.  The western bow means you submit fully and is seen as a weakness.  President Obama was raked over the coals for bowing lol.  The bow that is done in Martial Arts is a respect thing and not an idol worship thing.  The concept of is totally lost on many in western societies, which is ironic because people in the U.S. do it all the time with roadside memorials.



I remember participating on a panel for a BBC thing (nothing to do with Martial arts).  A picture went viral of a son who had left his family kowtowing when he met his parents.  Many were saying how that was ridiculous and overly dramatic.  My point was to say, based on the Chinese customs regarding filial piety that he broke a major taboo in basically abandoning his family.  In such a circumstance words are often not enough and that kowtowing was a culturally valid way of showing he was indeed very sorry that he had hurt them in that way.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Kung Fu gets that all the time.  The eastern bow doesn't have the same meaning as the western bow.  The western bow means you submit fully and is seen as a weakness.  President Obama was raked over the coals for bowing lol.  The bow that is done in Martial Arts is a respect thing and not an idol worship thing.  The concept of is totally lost on many in western societies, which is ironic because people in the U.S. do it all the time with roadside memorials.



This to me pretty much speaks for the major difference between Western and Eastern cultures. In the West people are obsessed with proving how much better they are than those around them, whereas Eastern cultures typically look for balance and mutual respect between individuals. The easiest way I have of describing the bow to people unfamiliar to Eastern culture and Eastern Martial Arts is to think of the bow like a hand-shake.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2016)

WaterGal said:


> I'd be pretty uncomfortable going to a martial arts event that had prayer in it too.  I don't have any problem with people praying before they train or compete, but when you have an official group prayer as part of your event, even if you say it's optional, it can lead to the kind of uncomfortable situation you're talking about.



What about to Satan?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> Im thinking more of bowing to the picture of the founder, like the bowing to kano jigoro that they did at the judo club I went to. Bowing to each other would just be respect. I always thought of it as tradition and honoring the ancestor type thing, but could definitely see it appearing as idol worship.



Apparently you can nod your head or something though and that is ok. Trained tkd with some Muslims at one point and the bow was a big issue.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 16, 2016)

Buka said:


> What we need now is a _United Protestant Karate Fighters Union_ and a _Jews for Kumite_ group, _Muslims for Muay Thai_, the _ Jehova Jump Kickers_, and, of course, the _Buddhist Bad Asses_. Hell, we can host a tournament, I'll gladly ref.
> 
> I hope nobody takes my comment as blasphemous, just funnin' a bit.  Let's all pull the trigger for Jesus, shall we?





Ironbear24 said:


> Rastas for Randori. Judo for Jesuits. I can't think of anymore.



Pencak Silat for Pastafarians
Hapkido for Hindus
Wing Chun for Wiccans
Sumo for Satanists
Soo Bahk Do for Sikhs
...
I can do this all day.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> What about to Satan?


HA ... good one. That's a direct conflict to my well being. There's just something not enjoyable about standing while getting pimp slapped by a prayer that points out that what you believe in is trash. lol.  It wasn't a prayer of good will.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 16, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Pencak Silat for Pastafarians
> Hapkido for Hindus
> Wing Chun for Wiccans
> Sumo for Satanists
> ...



Aiki-jujutsu for Atheists?

And my wife would say of me...

Wing Chun for Wing nuts and Kali for crack pots. Lol


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 16, 2016)

@TamesD:  I am not familiar with this group.



Juany118 said:


> Being a lapsed Catholic and someone who now, if forced to describe their practice, follows a path that combines Buddhist and Confucian principles, I can explain the problem.  I once had a talk with a family friend who is a Priest and he explained the issue this way when I tried to argue that eastern and western practices were compatible.  At the time I was still a practicing Catholic but had started meditation as a form of stress relief.



I would agree that easter and wester practices are not compatible.  They differ too much on how to attain eternity in heaven.



Juany118 said:


> When one meditates, he said, in the Eastern method one is looking within for peace within ones self.  However peace can only be found through God.  One can not simply meditate in order to recognize ones true conditions, to "simply" allow negative emotion to wash away so that we can not only be better people ourselves but to then likewise treat others with more respect.  No amount of meditation, he said, can melt away the Sin that separates us from each other, God and true peace.



I am not a catholic, nor have I ever been.  But from what I know of the catholic faith, and from my own christian beliefs, I would take exception to your priest:  We can not, nor should we do away with all negative emotion.  We should still view sin negatively, we should allow righteous anger.  If meditation cannot help separate us from the sin that separates us from God, what does?  My religious belief is that acceptance of Jesus Christ as my savior who died for my sins' forgiveness, who was raised from the dead, and continuing confession of my sins to God.  That separates me from sin that would keep me from God and heaven.



Juany118 said:


> The Bible, he said, even commands us to meditate but it commands us to mediate upon the Word of God and to reflect upon the Sins that seperate us from him.
> 
> That is nice, but too simplistic.  Go to BibleGateway - : msditate and type in the search word meditate.  That will tell you how many times, and more importantly, give the verses.  If you type in the verse in the search, you will also be given the opportunity to see the verse in context, and in its entire chapter.  It is always good to see a verse at least in context.  Point being, we aren't only told to meditate on the word of God.  Also, why would we reflect on the sins that separate us from God?  Those of us who are believing Christians, can have prior sins forgiven anytime we sincerely ask God to forgive them.
> 
> Then, by extension, anything that is born of meditation is contrary to Biblical Teaching.  We can not cultivate inner strength (Chi) alone, such strength is born from accepting God into your heart etc., etc, etc.



Things born of and coming from meditation of God and His word cannot be contrary to the Bible.

Gi (Chi) is an interesting thing to reflect on.  I have seen people who seem to enjoy the use of Gi, who are not Christian.  I think Gi can only really come from meditation.  I do not confine my meditation to concentrating on my Tan Jon while doing breathing exercises; I sometimes pray, sometimes meditate on scripture, sometimes go over techniques in my mind, sometimes try to empty my mind (mostly to allow my mind to react without 'thinking.').  I do not meditate with the intent of gaining goals of eastern philosophy.



Juany118 said:


> It gets even more touchy when you talk about finding enlightenment within.  A standard retort is "if you could find enlightenment within Christ would not have been sent to us, the only path to enlightenment is through accepting Jesus Christ."
> 
> I agree with you, there should be a difference, bit Christian Theologians says otherwise.



My belief is that enlightenment in the eastern sense, is too difficult to understand, much less attain.  Nor is it needed.  I can attain salvation only through acceptance of the gift of God, which is his only begotten son, Jesus Christ who shed His blood on the cross, for the forgiveness of our sins. 

The above is my belief, and no one else is required to agree with me.  Anyone who wishes to disagree with me is free to do so, and say so or simply ignore what I believe.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> ...
> The Principles of Buddhism in the 8 Fold Path are simply "*Right understanding, right thoughts good happy life..."* etc. Confuscianism central principle is WAY too wordily explained (read the Analects some day lol) but can be summed up by simple saying "the Brotherhood of Humanity".  So Christianity is focused on Sin, "thou shalt not".  Eastern Philosophies are focused on learning your place, hence "Right..."
> 
> ...



Added to explain that the thought in Confucianism is that right following of the principles makes for peace, tranquility, and happiness and all things good.  So if something goes wrong, to bring it to the attention of the authorities and the public, is a confession that one has not been living a proper life in following all the principles.  The Koreans tended to out-confuscious the Chinese.  Therefore, for a long time, a woman who was raped would almost never reveal it.  The shame more being the confession of not-right-living, than the actual suffering of the rape.  The same to a greater or lessor degree for other crimes or calamities.  Oh, and I have read Confucius and Mencius.  Mostly out of curiosity as to what was all the fuss about and to see if there was anything worth learning.  I remember thinking some of the things were interesting to think about as being a different philosophy.  I honestly don't remember much more.  That was a long time ago.  I certainly didn't take anything religious from them to heart.  I also once started to read the I Ching.  That I quit after a few pages, because I had strong feelings that it was a bad thing.

Anyway, just some more of my beliefs.  You nor anyone else has to accept them for yourselves, or agree with them in any way.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 16, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> I once had a prospective new student tell me that he couldn't do the bowing because it was too close to idol worship, and he couldn't do mokuso (moment of meditation before and after class) because it was against his religion. I told him "I would never require you to do anything that you thought went against your religion" as I walked him out the door.





kempodisciple said:


> *I never thought about it, but depending on what you are bowing to, it IS very close to idol worship, especially to someone with a western mind. Don't really see the issue with mokuso though*



I think that is the problem; the mind of that student.  If he was not told, or could not accept, that bowing to the instructor was a sign of respect like a handshake or salute, or to the dojo was a sign of respect to the art, he did right to say and believe what he did.  The same with meditation.

I would wonder how he accepted the bowing that was common in Europe to royalty and nobility, or to certain religious hierarchy?  Again, if he felt that was close to idolatry, he did right in saying so.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> My only point was to show that they were not simply Warriors but Warriors who engaged in Warfare on a level we arguably didn't even see in WWII.
> 
> As my original course of study, as I said, was History and Philosophy, when I look at History I do not make moral judgements regarding wars past.  I simply look at the tactics and strategies used.  If we start making moral judgements we get into all sorts of murky territory.  First it starts with the age old cliché "the victor writes the history".  Due to this the possibility of propoganada, then the circular arguments of "well yeah Nation A may have done X but Nation B did Y."
> 
> Just look at WWII.  Yes the Allies were the "good guys" but the Bomber Pilots who fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo lived long enough to see their missions become something we would call a War Crime if it was done today.  I am not a fan of those kind of arguments.



Interesting in that we are in today, not WWII.  So is there validity in condemning whose pilots?  Or is that what you meant by not being a fan of those kind of arguments?  As an aside, I understand the scrutiny given fire bombing (I understand those who question it, as I do those who knew it would shorten the war), but have no problem with use of the atomic bomb.  Go figure, eh?


----------



## Buka (Aug 16, 2016)

I never considered bowing anything other than protocol, a protocol showing respect. (One that I like) Never considered it religious. 







Pictured above - And they are..........?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 16, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think that is the problem; the mind of that student.  If he was not told, or could not accept, that bowing to the instructor was a sign of respect like a handshake or salute, or to the dojo was a sign of respect to the art, he did right to say and believe what he did.  The same with meditation.
> 
> I would wonder how he accepted the bowing that was common in Europe to royalty and nobility, or to certain religious hierarchy?  Again, if he felt that was close to idolatry, he did right in saying so.


 It wasn't just common there, but it was considered the etiquette of being a gentleman. Actors still bow after plays.  I found this from a site that talk about Etiquette from the 1800's
"To turn to our every-day forms of salutation. We take off our hats on visiting an acquaintance. We bow on being introduced to strangers. " Source

Sometimes when I shake hands with a stranger I can see a small bow upon the hand shake.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 16, 2016)

Buka said:


> I never considered bowing anything other than protocol, a protocol showing respect. (One that I like) Never considered it religious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Muslim moose bowing towards Mecca! We need to build a wall along the Canadian border to keep out untrustworthy ungulates! Not to worry, Donald Trump will make the Canadians pay for the whole thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 16, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Muslim moose bowing towards Mecca! We need to build a wall along the Canadian border to keep out untrustworthy ungulates! Not to worry, Donald Trump will make the Canadians pay for the whole thing.



Too late, there are already Moose in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York...not to mention a few in the Northwest too....darn lax moose immigration laws


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 16, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Muslim moose bowing towards Mecca! We need to build a wall along the Canadian border to keep out untrustworthy ungulates! Not to worry, Donald Trump will make the Canadians pay for the whole thing.


pretty much.  The U.S. can't stop U.S. citizens from killing each other in every day murder so maybe this plan will work.


----------



## Buka (Aug 16, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Muslim moose bowing towards Mecca! We need to build a wall along the Canadian border to keep out untrustworthy ungulates! Not to worry, Donald Trump will make the Canadians pay for the whole thing.



They're Mooselims.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 16, 2016)

Tames D said:


> Does anyone here have experience with this organization? If so, will you share? Thank you.
> Karate, Martial Arts, Christian Karate - Christian Martial Arts - For Youth and Families


I read through this T, I wonder have you had your question answered? Jx


----------



## Tames D (Aug 16, 2016)

Jenna said:


> I read through this T, I wonder have you had your question answered? Jx


Hi Jenna - No, not really   I was hoping to hear from someone that had first hand knowledge of this particular org.
However, I like the direction the thread had taken. Some humor, and good opinions on spirituality. Great information. I'm currently trying to find myself spiritually, so some of this stuff is over my head, ha ha. But love reading it.

Jenna, I'm sending you a PM, so keep a look out for it.


----------



## Buka (Aug 16, 2016)

As I've written before, had a Christian school that used to come down and sparr with us. Great bunch of folks, really good fighters. We never really spoke of religion. I got no problem with anything.

What I'm wondering about the particular school mentioned in the OP....say you lived near there and it was the only place realistically you could get to. If you weren't a Christian, would you mention it? Do they ask? Should they?

No reasons other than straight curiosity.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 16, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Interesting in that we are in today, not WWII.  So is there validity in condemning whose pilots?  Or is that what you meant by not being a fan of those kind of arguments?  As an aside, I understand the scrutiny given fire bombing (I understand those who question it, as I do those who knew it would shorten the war), but have no problem with use of the atomic bomb.  Go figure, eh?



That is largely my point.  It was acceptable at the time, heck not acceptable it was his wars were fought.  To make moral or legal judgments of the people of a time decades, centuries or millennia later is inappropriate.  The point of history, imo, is to look at these things in order to avoid the pitfalls based on contemporary rules, not to judge those who obeyed their rules.

To the Priest's point, he was saying one should somehow overcome sin.  That is impossible for flawed humanity.  What it is about is this.  Often the things that cause pain is the guilt or direct offense of sinful actions.  He believed that in meditating on our sins we accept that we are sinful rather than hide from it.  In confronting, and accepting, our sinful nature we first relieve the pressures created by avoidance and finally it helps us to avoid making similar mistakes.

On Confucius the issue you note really comes out of its application after the Han Dynasty made it State Doctrine.  One of the core precepts is submission to authority (our superiors) as the purpose of authority is to benefit those beneath you. It was then expanded upon by Neo-Confucian scholars.  Now being a Philosopher Confucius didn't think of the potential application of this in the broadest sense (think Nietzsche in modern times) when those in power did not live up to the ideals that were also part, heck required, for the "rules" to function.  This complication gets expanded when it comes to women because of the fact that China, especially after the advent of Neo-Confucianism became a VERY Patriarchal society.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 17, 2016)

Tames D said:


> Hi Jenna - No, not really   I was hoping to hear from someone that had first hand knowledge of this particular org.
> However, I like the direction the thread had taken. Some humor, and good opinions on spirituality. Great information. I'm currently trying to find myself spiritually, so some of this stuff is over my head, ha ha. But love reading it.
> 
> Jenna, I'm sending you a PM, so keep a look out for it.


If people tell you things over your head then they are not the best teacher for you  Like in mastery of your MA, any movement to wards the true Divine is a path of steps.  And perhaps there are people who concern their selves with the steps stretching in front and behind - like people who argue over lineages, or they watch all the other individuals on all of the other steps, and to do that is to avoid the question: I am on this step right here and right now for a reason, what is that reason? what am I to learn here on this step that moves me closer to the Divine? That is the only important thing to ask.  It is trivial concern systems of beliefs and orthodoxies.  These are intentional distractions that can and often do span ones entire existence here. I mail you directly, wishes, Jx


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> That is largely my point.  It was acceptable at the time, heck not acceptable it was his wars were fought.  To make moral or legal judgments of the people of a time decades, centuries or millennia later is inappropriate.  The point of history, imo, is to look at these things in order to avoid the pitfalls based on contemporary rules, not to judge those who obeyed their rules.
> 
> To the Priest's point, he was saying one should somehow overcome sin.  That is impossible for flawed humanity.  What it is about is this.  Often the things that cause pain is the guilt or direct offense of sinful actions.  He believed that in meditating on our sins we accept that we are sinful rather than hide from it.  In confronting, and accepting, our sinful nature we first relieve the pressures created by avoidance and finally it helps us to avoid making similar mistakes.
> 
> On Confucius the issue you note really comes out of its application after the Han Dynasty made it State Doctrine.  One of the core precepts is submission to authority (our superiors) as the purpose of authority is to benefit those beneath you. It was then expanded upon by Neo-Confucian scholars.  Now being a Philosopher Confucius didn't think of the potential application of this in the broadest sense (think Nietzsche in modern times) when those in power did not live up to the ideals that were also part, heck required, for the "rules" to function.  This complication gets expanded when it comes to women because of the fact that China, especially after the advent of Neo-Confucianism became a VERY Patriarchal society.



I sort of agree.  However, even during WWII, there were protocols that were followed even if not codified in US law.  But bombing cities, even fire bombing, was hoped to force the civilian populace to petition their government to stop the war.  The problem for Germany was that the civilian populace had no idea that the bombing was taking place [/Snideness Off].  Actually, I don't know that even if the German populace realized the reason for the bombing of the cities, there was any part of the german dictatorship that was approachable or would have listened.  And there was a problem in the US that people were starting to get tired of the war, its loss of Americans lives, and the privations of rationing.  Anything that would bring the war to a quicker close was worth considering, especially for those countries that had suffered more than we did in the USA.  Fire bombing cities wasn't a desire of the USA alone.

As to your priest friend, as I mentioned, I am not a catholic.  But from my perspective, the Catholic Church has an incorrect view of how to overcome sin, placing too much emphasis on how to overcome sin by works, which in my belief, will do nothing to mitigate our sins.  My belief is that our sins have been paid for by Jesus' shed blood on the cross.  I or anyone else only need to claim it.  Works do not produce salvation, and the Bible even tells us that.  That is my belief, which I believe is from what the Bible tells us.  Anyone is of course, free to disagree, and no one need believe it only because I say so.

In Korea, it was the Yi Dynasty that adopted Confucianism as the state religion.  Other religions were disdained or actively put down.  However, they were not eradicated, as there were always some people who did not wish to give up their former religions, even though they adopted many of Confucianism's principles.  Even animism is still practiced by many of the Korean people, actively or as any situation seems to demand.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> I sort of agree.  However, even during WWII, there were protocols that were followed even if not codified in US law.  But bombing cities, even fire bombing, was hoped to force the civilian populace to petition their government to stop the war.  The problem for Germany was that the civilian populace had no idea that the bombing was taking place [/Snideness Off].  Actually, I don't know that even if the German populace realized the reason for the bombing of the cities, there was any part of the german dictatorship that was approachable or would have listened.  And there was a problem in the US that people were starting to get tired of the war, its loss of Americans lives, and the privations of rationing.  Anything that would bring the war to a quicker close was worth considering, especially for those countries that had suffered more than we did in the USA.  Fire bombing cities wasn't a desire of the USA alone.
> 
> As to your priest friend, as I mentioned, I am not a catholic.  But from my perspective, the Catholic Church has an incorrect view of how to overcome sin, placing too much emphasis on how to overcome sin by works, which in my belief, will do nothing to mitigate our sins.  My belief is that our sins have been paid for by Jesus' shed blood on the cross.  I or anyone else only need to claim it.  Works do not produce salvation, and the Bible even tells us that.  That is my belief, which I believe is from what the Bible tells us.  Anyone is of course, free to disagree, and no one need believe it only because I say so.
> 
> In Korea, it was the Yi Dynasty that adopted Confucianism as the state religion.  Other religions were disdained or actively put down.  However, they were not eradicated, as there were always some people who did not wish to give up their former religions, even though they adopted many of Confucianism's principles.  Even animism is still practiced by many of the Korean people, actively or as any situation seems to demand.




Sorry I must be explaining it wrong.  You can't overcome sin, you can only overcome the negative effects that avoidance has (psychological, kinda like going to therapy for trauma) and, hopefully learn from mistakes.  The sin is not "absolved" via the meditation .

Oh and I know the last bit about Korea, the point I was trying to make was that a philosophy that was based on EVERYONE acting in the idealized fashion ran into cultural norms that were incompatible with it (corrupt beauracrats, the usual issues you get with Emperor's, patriarchy etc.)


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Sorry I must be explaining it wrong.  You can't overcome sin, you can only overcome the negative effects that avoidance has (psychological, kinda like going to therapy for trauma) and, hopefully learn from mistakes.  The sin is not "absolved" via the meditation .
> 
> Oh and I know the last bit about Korea, the point I was trying to make was that a philosophy that was based on EVERYONE acting in the idealized fashion ran into cultural norms that were incompatible with it (corrupt beauracrats, the usual issues you get with Emperor's, patriarchy etc.)



I think we were both sort of saying the same thing on sin, but looking at it from our own perspective.  As to Korea, you are correct and that has happened in other counties as well.  And as an aside, people's practice of a religion may be influenced by previous beliefs.  From my experience, protestant religions in Korea tend to emphasize the Holy Spirit more than in the US.  I have always believed that came from Animism.  Not that Korean churches 'mix' the two religions, but rather that animism made the acceptance of a focus on the Holy Ghost easier.  I have no proof of that, but it just seemed to make sense from my observations.


----------



## WaterGal (Aug 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Apparently you can nod your head or something though and that is ok. Trained tkd with some Muslims at one point and the bow was a big issue.



Huh.  I've trained with a few Muslims, too, and bowing was never an issue.  What _was _an issue with one person was shaking hands with a training partner, because it could mean touching hands with members of the opposite sex.

The only person I've run into who refused to bow to the flag/teacher for religious reasons was, I think, a Jehovah's Witness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> Im thinking more of bowing to the picture of the founder, like the bowing to kano jigoro that they did at the judo club I went to. Bowing to each other would just be respect. I always thought of it as tradition and honoring the ancestor type thing, but could definitely see it appearing as idol worship.


Only if there's actual worship going on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2016)

Buka said:


> I never considered bowing anything other than protocol, a protocol showing respect. (One that I like) Never considered it religious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Clearly worshipping the asphalt.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Clearly worshipping the asphalt.


Well it's a lot easier to get around than trudging through the snow clogged forest.  Smart moose.  They know a good thing when they see one.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Only if there's actual worship going on.


There can not be worship going on, but people still being uncomfortable because it feels too close to worship to them. Not saying I'm agreeing that it is, I can just understand the discomfort there.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 28, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> There can not be worship going on, but people still being uncomfortable because it feels too close to worship to them. Not saying I'm agreeing that it is, I can just understand the discomfort there.



I agree.  I considered studying Aikido, but was worried about the bowing I saw on some TV documentaries, which I thought approached religious reverence.  I probably should have actually visited some schools and watched, and asked questions.  I might have found no reason to worry.  Or confirmed my earlier observations from my religious viewpoint.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> I agree.  I considered studying Aikido, but was worried about the bowing I saw on some TV documentaries, which I thought approached religious reverence.  I probably should have actually visited some schools and watched, and asked questions.  I might have found no reason to worry.  Or confirmed my earlier observations from my religious viewpoint.


Bowing, in and of itself, cannot approach religious reverence. That requires intent, not a simple movement of the body. Given the cultural context (it's just a very formal show of respect), it's only worrisome if you ignore the intent behind it. This approach could also lead someone to see an enthusiastic, 2-handed handshake as a display of domination.


----------



## Tames D (Aug 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Bowing, in and of itself, cannot approach religious reverence. That requires intent, not a simple movement of the body. Given the cultural context (it's just a very formal show of respect), it's only worrisome if you ignore the intent behind it. This approach could also lead someone to see an enthusiastic, 2-handed handshake as a display of domination.


I think we just had another agreement...Where are the Mods?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2016)

Tames D said:


> I think we just had another agreement...Where are the Mods?


I clicked "agree", then realized we're agreeing about agreeing. We need meta-mods.


----------



## Tames D (Aug 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I clicked "agree", then realized we're agreeing about agreeing. We need meta-mods.


I 'liked' this post because I couldn't bring myself to 'agree' with you again.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Bowing, in and of itself, cannot approach religious reverence. That requires intent, not a simple movement of the body. Given the cultural context (it's just a very formal show of respect), it's only worrisome if you ignore the intent behind it. This approach could also lead someone to see an enthusiastic, 2-handed handshake as a display of domination.



Agreed on what you said in the first sentence.  However, as you  said, it was the intent I thought I detected in the bowing to the founder (which I did not specifically state, but thought I implied enough for people to understand).  If that didn't come through perhaps I should just have stated it outright.

But that was my concern.  Bowing is sometimes used as a religious practice.  But not always.  When it is a show of respect only, just as a handshake or a salute, I have no problem with it.  If I think it approaches a religious practice, I would not wish to participate.  It is my concern and no one else need believe as I do.


----------



## Yondanchris (Aug 30, 2016)

Tames D said:


> Does anyone here have experience with this organization? If so, will you share? Thank you.
> Karate, Martial Arts, Christian Karate - Christian Martial Arts - For Youth and Families



Yes they are a local Southern California Karate Ministry run by Mr. Bob Mitchell who tested alongside Bob White for BB back in the day. 

They have a couple of church studios teaching mostly kids and some adults. They have some local tournament presence, especially in point sparring. 

Mr. Mitchell used to have some inner Demons until coming to faith and deciding to use his skills for God than for busting heads. 

Some of the best Christian Martial Artists I know of! 

Just my .02 cents, 

Chris


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 31, 2016)

Yondanchris said:


> Yes they are a local Southern California Karate Ministry run by Mr. Bob Mitchell who tested alongside Bob White for BB back in the day.
> 
> They have a couple of church studios teaching mostly kids and some adults. They have some local tournament presence, especially in point sparring.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the post Chris.  Good to see you posting.  I have missed your inputs.


----------



## Yondanchris (Aug 31, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Thanks for the post Chris.  Good to see you posting.  I have missed your inputs.



No problem, life often intrudes on hobbies. New baby, new job, taking 7 classes and working on a thesis has kept me away!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 31, 2016)

Yondanchris said:


> No problem, life often intrudes on hobbies. New baby, new job, taking 7 classes and working on a thesis has kept me away!



Drive on! 

Congrats on the new baby.  Hope we might see you a bit more anyway.


----------



## Tames D (Aug 31, 2016)

Yondanchris said:


> Yes they are a local Southern California Karate Ministry run by Mr. Bob Mitchell who tested alongside Bob White for BB back in the day.
> 
> They have a couple of church studios teaching mostly kids and some adults. They have some local tournament presence, especially in point sparring.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response Chris. I have met Bob Mitchell once years ago, through Bob White, who is a friend of mine. I've known of Mr Mitchells organization for a few years now, but never knew much about it. I was looking for an inside perspective from a member.
Again, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2016)

Yondanchris said:


> No problem, life often intrudes on hobbies. New baby, new job, taking 7 classes and working on a thesis has kept me away!


Priorities, man! Priorities!


----------



## KangTsai (Sep 1, 2016)

I was reminded of this right away.
(Not judo by the way, obviously)


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Sep 1, 2016)

So are you guys saying that you don't think any Christians should learn how to fight?


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 1, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> So are you guys saying that you don't think any Christians should learn how to fight?
> 
> 
> "Re-stomp the groin"
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


Whose post are you referring to here? I don't remember anyone saying that.


----------



## Tames D (Sep 1, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> So are you guys saying that you don't think any Christians should learn how to fight?
> 
> 
> "Re-stomp the groin"
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


I may have missed something, but I don't think anyone here has said that.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 2, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> So are you guys saying that you don't think any Christians should learn how to fight?



Nope.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 2, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> So are you guys saying that you don't think any Christians should learn how to fight?
> 
> 
> "Re-stomp the groin"
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


Nope, I don't think anyone is saying that.

Personally I don't see the desirability of only training martial arts with those who share your religious beliefs, but to each their own.  If it makes someone happy to announce their religious affiliation in the name of their dojo and just work out with their fellow believers, then more power to them.

Capoeira for Catholics
Aikido for Atheists
Hung Gar for Humanists
Savate for Sufis
'Rassling for Rosicrucians


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 2, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Capoeira for Catholics
> Aikido for Atheists
> Hung Gar for Humanists
> Savate for Sufis
> 'Rassling for Rosicrucians



Xingyiquan for Sith
Taijiquan for Jedi


----------



## KangTsai (Sep 2, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Xingyiquan for Sith
> Taijiquan for Jedi





Tony Dismukes said:


> Nope, I don't think anyone is saying that.
> 
> 
> Capoeira for Catholics
> ...



Jujutsu for Jews.
Jew-jutsu.


----------



## Balrog (Sep 6, 2016)

I'm not a big fan of mixing religion with martial arts.  You want to learn to defend yourself, go to the dojang.  You want to learn to pray, go to church.  I have found over the years that punching beats praying in a self-defense situation every time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 6, 2016)

Balrog said:


> I'm not a big fan of mixing religion with martial arts.  You want to learn to defend yourself, go to the dojang.  You want to learn to pray, go to church.  I have found over the years that punching beats praying in a self-defense situation every time.


That's my thought, too. In fact, I think there's a significant loss if we combine the two, simply because it limits the viewpoints and thoughts that are likely to enter the discussions and training. At the same time, if the goal isn't self-defense (where more viewpoints often leads to better in-class validation and more challenging questions), then mixing the two may have no ill effects. If someone wants to spend more times with their fellow Hare Krishna, spending that time in a Hapkido class is as good as anywhere else.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Oct 10, 2016)

Balrog said:


> ...I have found over the years that punching beats praying in a self-defense situation every time.


I agree but by then, you're too late. I have found over the years that praying ahead of time almost always prevents a self-defense situation from arising.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's my thought, too. In fact, I think there's a significant loss if we combine the two, simply because it limits the viewpoints and thoughts that are likely to enter the discussions and training. At the same time, if the goal isn't self-defense (where more viewpoints often leads to better in-class validation and more challenging questions), then mixing the two may have no ill effects. If someone wants to spend more times with their fellow Hare Krishna, spending that time in a Hapkido class is as good as anywhere else.



Which you can do without having to have dedicated Christian hapkido. 

The idea of cultural segregation does not really sit well with me


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 11, 2016)

Buka said:


> What we need now is a _United Protestant Karate Fighters Union_ and a _Jews for Kumite_ group, _Muslims for Muay Thai_, the _ Jehova Jump Kickers_, and, of course, the _Buddhist Bad Asses_. Hell, we can host a tournament, I'll gladly ref.
> 
> I hope nobody takes my comment as blasphemous, just funnin' a bit.  Let's all pull the trigger for Jesus, shall we?




But what about Messianic Jews?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 11, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Which you can do without having to have dedicated Christian hapkido.
> 
> The idea of cultural segregation does not really sit well with me


It's not my cup of tea, either, but I don't see much harm in someone using their martial arts time to hang out with like-minded folks.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It's not my cup of tea, either, but I don't see much harm in someone using their martial arts time to hang out with like-minded folks.



Your team needs some diversity. It is what makes you interesting.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 11, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Your team needs some diversity. It is what makes you interesting.


Speaking which


Power Rangers Movie (2017) Official Teaser Trailer - YouTube


----------



## John Brewer (Jan 28, 2017)

Tames D said:


> Does anyone here have experience with this organization? If so, will you share? Thank you.
> Karate, Martial Arts, Christian Karate - Christian Martial Arts - For Youth and Families



Hi maybe I can help. UMAFC is an organization that uses martial arts demonstrations in an outreach event setting to tell people about God. Mr. Mitchell does have a class and there is also a class at South Bay Calvary but UMAFC is actually the outreach event.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 30, 2017)

Hmm... Leaving off the whole Christian ideology and other issues, I just wanted to address one aspect of this thread, namely, that of the bowing in Japanese arts.

It is religious. Deal with it.

To be clear, I'm talking specifically about things like the bowing to the founder/kamiza/kamidana/shomen at the beginning and end of class, more than bowing to partners before and after training, although the influence there is something that should always be considered as well. But that initial bow? It's a Shinto ritual. Whether or not your dojo points that out, makes a big deal about it, mentions it at all, or is even in any real way aware of it, it is a Shinto ritual. Hell, the dojo's structure is based (largely) on Shinto shrines or temples... the word "dojo" itself comes from Buddhism... and many martial traditions have their origins centred in Buddhist Temples or Shinto Shrines, with deep historical, geographical, philosophical, and spiritual connections to these religious forms.

Obviously, this is something that has it's origins in older arts... however, the basic ideas, forms, structures, rituals, and more are just as present in modern arts... Judo and Aikido classes begin with a bow towards the front of the dojo, commonly with a picture of Kano or Ueshiba, or perhaps a senior founder of the line you're studying... this is a Shinto bow. It is showing respect for those that have come before you, yeah... but that's pretty much a core aspect of Shinto in the first place. Sometimes you'll see a few claps between two bows... which is designed to both scare off potentially ill-intended spirits, and awaken protective ones... very much Shinto. If there's a small model building at the front of the dojo, that's a kamidana... a house for spirits. The front of the dojo is called the kamiza... where the spirits sit.

What all of this means is that, if you don't attribute any religious aspects to the building, the activities engaged in, the rituals, and so on, you're denying much of why what you're doing is there in the first place... you're, essentially, ignoring large parts of what you do... which leads to you missing many of the lessons and their reasons. Can you do that? Sure... but it's like learning to play tennis by only limiting yourself to forehand lobs, and ignoring where the lines are on the court... sure, you'll have fun hitting a ball around, but are you really playing tennis? Or just hitting a ball with a racquet?

As a result, I'm completely with Paul when he said he told the guy who came along that he'd never make him do anything that went against his religious beliefs as he walked him out the door... I'd do the same thing. From my perspective, and I'd suggest probably Paul's as well, if you're not going to do the thing, don't do the thing. Additionally, if your religion forbids something, then you can't do it... unless you want to go against your religion. And that's a spiritual choice the person needs to make for themselves. But to say "well, we don't think of it as a religious action" is kinda irrelevant... you may class yourself as a vegetarian, but when you're eating steak, not thinking of it as once being a cow doesn't change what it is. 

Thing is, from a Japanese religious perspective, there's no conflict having multiple religious influences and beliefs... you can follow Shinto practices, attend a Buddhist temple, embrace Taoism (another influence on the dojo that adds more layers to things), and, from a Japanese perspective, also be a Christian. It's really only the Western religions that turn around and, essentially, say "my way only"... even when the difference is minimalist, only the one form that's being followed by the person in question is the "right" one... so the restriction will come from the Western religious side of things.

Of course, this whole idea of "Christian Karate" or similar strikes me as highly amusing... as the idea is often to have a martial art that is devoid of Eastern religious ideals and concepts... but are universally done by people with such a lack of insight into such concepts that they don't even know what is or is not influenced by, or are outright Eastern religious aspects and concepts there in the first place. The only safe way to not have any Japanese religious aspect is simply... do boxing. If you're doing karate, or anything similar and based in such systems, then the simple fact is, you're engaging in Japanese religious practices... even when you don't know you are.


----------



## Steve (Jan 30, 2017)

I don't get it.  Seriously.   Karate without bowing is like tennis without a net and chalk lines?   That makes no sense.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 31, 2017)

Yeah, I get that you don't get it... that's apparent in your mis-grasp of my comments.

No, I mentioned nothing about what karate is, I was talking about Japanese arts in general (including karate, of course). Secondly, have you ever encountered the phrase "Karate (or Budo, or any activity specified by the context, actually) begins and ends with rei (bowing, etiquette, ritual etc)" (Rei ni hajimari, rei ni owaru - 礼に始まり礼に終わる)? That kinda talks specifically to the concept, you know... as it's not really saying what is commonly thought, that it all begins and ends with respect (to each other), but that each training session begins and ends with an acknowledgement of the previous generations, the particular guardian deities associated with the art and dojo, and so on... in other words, with a ritual based in Shinto beliefs and thoughts.

So, what I was saying was that to participate in a Japanese martial art without acknowledging the reality that much of what you're doing is, indeed, religious in base, intent, and even deed, is to miss so much of the point and reality of what you're doing that it's like thinking tennis is just the hitting of a ball with a racquet. Perhaps it makes more sense to you to say that it's like tennis without the scoring, then? The actions are ostensibly the same, as are the surrounds, but there's really none of the point (of course, by simply keeping the surrounds the same in a martial art, you're now already in a religious building/environment... hence my removal of the lines of the court in the first case).


----------



## drop bear (Jan 31, 2017)

the advantage of defining yourself as Christian Karate is you can just say what you do is not taoist. Because it is not Karate it is Christian Karate

So imagine it is like playing tennis but on a table with ping pong balls and a paddle


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 31, 2017)

No, that's the same as declaring yourself vegetarian when eating a steak. The core of the culture that influenced and shaped the art (karate) gave it a number of religious aspects... whether they're addressed or even acknowledged or not, they're there. Simply denying them doesn't change them, or remove them, which is my point.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2017)

Not at Chris, I believe he already knows this...but....Just for the record, Karate is Japanese.... Taoism is Chinese..... Japanese art better off using Shinto or Buddhism....just sayin


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 31, 2017)

Yeah... but not exactly without influence in Japan.... Dave Lowry's "In The Dojo" recounts an encounter he had with a Chado (Tea Ceremony) teacher, who spoke about the large influence Taoism has on Chado... talking about the Tao of the chashitsu (a small hut for the practice of tea). She then asked him if he'd considered the Tao of the dojo... which is quite an interesting concept in itself...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 31, 2017)

Very interesting perspective Chris Parker.  What I have seen of Aikido bowing to their founder, does indeed make me think of ancestor worship.  I would not want to do that.  But as you said, all your comments refer to Japanese arts.  I have never studied one.  I have only studied TKD and Hapkido.  Neither one required me to perform a bow with a religious connotation. 

I don't mean to speak for all Korean arts, their founders, their GMs or other teachers.  My TKD teacher was a follower of Song Myong Moon.  You had to really press him to get him to discuss his religion even in private.  My Hapkido GM was a Christian.  I don't recall him ever mentioning it in a class.  I only know because we became friends over time.


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I get that you don't get it... that's apparent in your mis-grasp of my comments.


It's possible that it's because your analogies kind of suck.  Nah.  You're right.  It couldn't be you.  You use so many words and speak with such authority, it would be inconceivable. 





> No, I mentioned nothing about what karate is, I was talking about Japanese arts in general (including karate, of course).


So then... yeah.  You were talking about karate.  Other stuff, too.  But yeah.  Karate.  





> Secondly, have you ever encountered the phrase "Karate (or Budo, or any activity specified by the context, actually) begins and ends with rei (bowing, etiquette, ritual etc)" (Rei ni hajimari, rei ni owaru - 礼に始まり礼に終わる)? That kinda talks specifically to the concept, you know... as it's not really saying what is commonly thought, that it all begins and ends with respect (to each other), but that each training session begins and ends with an acknowledgement of the previous generations, the particular guardian deities associated with the art and dojo, and so on... in other words, with a ritual based in Shinto beliefs and thoughts.


Okay. So, broad strokes here, are you suggesting that the idea of homage to previous generations is a uniquely Shinto thing, or are you saying that bowing to the picture on the wall before and after each Karate (or whatever) class is uniquely Shinto?





> So, what I was saying was that to participate in a Japanese martial art without acknowledging the reality that much of what you're doing is, indeed, religious in base, intent, and even deed, is to miss so much of the point and reality of what you're doing that it's like thinking tennis is just the hitting of a ball with a racquet. Perhaps it makes more sense to you to say that it's like tennis without the scoring, then? The actions are ostensibly the same, as are the surrounds, but there's really none of the point (of course, by simply keeping the surrounds the same in a martial art, you're now already in a religious building/environment... hence my removal of the lines of the court in the first case).


Honestly, it tickles my funny bone that you are using a sport analogy.  That, with your history of sport vs street vs self defense, your first turn is to a sport analogy.   But, yeah.  The sport analogy doesn't work because you are mixing up physical, tangible, demonstrable skill with a strictly spiritual pursuit.  A more correct analogy is that karate (or whatever) never applied is like tennis without a racquet.  Fighting skills never applied in a fight are like playing Wii tennis.   You're going through the motions, but who knows if the skills are transferable?


Chris Parker said:


> No, that's the same as declaring yourself vegetarian when eating a steak. The core of the culture that influenced and shaped the art (karate) gave it a number of religious aspects... whether they're addressed or even acknowledged or not, they're there. Simply denying them doesn't change them, or remove them, which is my point.


No, it's really not like this.  Your analogy is just.. .terrible, Chris.  Come on.  It's more like a vegetarian eating a tofurkey burger.  It's more akin to the Brazilians taking a uniquely Japanese art, discarding the stuff they didn't need and building on what they did.  Is BJJ a Japanese art?  I'd say that it is not, but it's important to remember that it is derived from Japan. 

In the same way, when a Christian celebrates Easter or Christmas, they are celebrating a Christian holiday even if we know that the timing and some of the rituals are of pagan origin.


----------



## John Brewer (Jan 31, 2017)

I'm pretty sure this thread was someone asking about our organization not bowing. That being said we bow in class out of respect. Some pretty funny comments in the thread though.


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Bowing, in and of itself, cannot approach religious reverence. That requires intent, not a simple movement of the body. Given the cultural context (it's just a very formal show of respect), it's only worrisome if you ignore the intent behind it. This approach could also lead someone to see an enthusiastic, 2-handed handshake as a display of domination.


Very much my opinion on the matter.  I am a heathen raised in a family of heathens.  But my parents thought it was important that we understand at least some of what most everyone around us believed.  So, as a kid, I went to a Catholic school for a few years, as well as a Lutheran school.  I participated in the rituals and devotions and prayers, and don't think too much about it one way or the other.  While I have no doubt that some of the other kids were actively worshipping, others, like myself, were simply, respectfully participating. 

One can go to an Aikido school and mimic the motions out of respect, without moving into the category of worship.

But the larger issue, I think, is one that I believe Chris Parker is trying to raise.  Or maybe I don't understand him.  But I THINK he's suggesting that if you aren't worshipping and are just going through the motions, you aren't REALLY training in that art.  I'm a guy who doesn't like the idea of bowing to O Sensei, and won't do it...  is it impossible for me to learn aikido?  Seems like Chris Parker is saying yes, I might train something, but it wouldn't be Aikido.  

Or maybe I have it all wrong.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 31, 2017)

John Brewer said:


> I'm pretty sure this thread was someone asking about our organization not bowing. That being said we bow in class out of respect. Some pretty funny comments in the thread though.



Fair enough. How do you console that with Christianity?

Say if someone suggests it is the worship of a false idol.  Or work on a sabbith or something.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I get that you don't get it... that's apparent in your mis-grasp of my comments.
> 
> No, I mentioned nothing about what karate is, I was talking about Japanese arts in general (including karate, of course). Secondly, have you ever encountered the phrase "Karate (or Budo, or any activity specified by the context, actually) begins and ends with rei (bowing, etiquette, ritual etc)" (Rei ni hajimari, rei ni owaru - 礼に始まり礼に終わる)? That kinda talks specifically to the concept, you know... as it's not really saying what is commonly thought, that it all begins and ends with respect (to each other), but that each training session begins and ends with an acknowledgement of the previous generations, the particular guardian deities associated with the art and dojo, and so on... in other words, with a ritual based in Shinto beliefs and thoughts.
> 
> So, what I was saying was that to participate in a Japanese martial art without acknowledging the reality that much of what you're doing is, indeed, religious in base, intent, and even deed, is to miss so much of the point and reality of what you're doing that it's like thinking tennis is just the hitting of a ball with a racquet. Perhaps it makes more sense to you to say that it's like tennis without the scoring, then? The actions are ostensibly the same, as are the surrounds, but there's really none of the point (of course, by simply keeping the surrounds the same in a martial art, you're now already in a religious building/environment... hence my removal of the lines of the court in the first case).


I would argue that it's religious in background. That doesn't mean it's still religious. Much of the "secular" side of Christmas is a hold-over from pagan traditions of the Yule. It's not religious anymore for most people (I certainly have no religious connection to a Christmas tree), though that's where it came from.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Fair enough. How do you console that with Christianity?
> 
> Say if someone suggests it is the worship of a false idol.  Or work on a sabbith or something.


I'd just tell them it's only worship if you're worshiping.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2017)

Steve said:


> Very much my opinion on the matter.  I am a heathen raised in a family of heathens.  But my parents thought it was important that we understand at least some of what most everyone around us believed.  So, as a kid, I went to a Catholic school for a few years, as well as a Lutheran school.  I participated in the rituals and devotions and prayers, and don't think too much about it one way or the other.  While I have no doubt that some of the other kids were actively worshipping, others, like myself, were simply, respectfully participating.
> 
> One can go to an Aikido school and mimic the motions out of respect, without moving into the category of worship.
> 
> ...


I have no problem bowing to a picture. It's weird to me - just a different starting ritual than I'm used to - but I've done it when attending seminars at dojos in Ueshiba's Aikido, and when visiting some.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2017)

I had successive posts "liked" by @drop bear and @Steve. What the hell is wrong with this thread???


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2017)

You're starting to come around.   What can I say?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I had successive posts "liked" by @drop bear and @Steve. What the hell is wrong with this thread???



Credit where credit is due.


----------



## TSDTexan (Jan 31, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm... Leaving off the whole Christian ideology and other issues, I just wanted to address one aspect of this thread, namely, that of the bowing in Japanese arts.
> 
> It is religious. Deal with it.
> 
> ...




One of the few times I find myself in complete agreement with you.

I am a Kyu belt within a Okinawan Karatedo, and at the Dojo its very stripped down. Almost Zen in its austerity.

But, we have our bows...  oh yeah we do.

As I am a Christian, but an atypical one at that, I don't feel troubled in my conscience with regard to a juxtaposition of opposing beliefs.

There are none.

There are some issues that are not fundamental. And a few that are.

The Trinity, the virgin birth, the sinless life, substituionary death and resurrection, that salvation is a free gift of God, not earned by works...
I will die on that hill, I cannot surrender those things.

But..

If my school added a cubbyhole shrine with a statue of Buddha, and required me to burn incense to it, and bow before it... I would have to exit from training there.

If there was a cubbyhole, and other students were allowed to light incense, on a opt out volunteer basis. My conscience would not be offended, but I would keep my silence in criticism of other's beliefs.

If outside of class I were pressured into a criticism of my fellow students beliefs, I would remain silent. Even if I have a personal opinion that opposes their beliefs.

I am there to train in the martial art of karate... not critique religious beliefs of others. And its their own life, and path to walk.

At minimum I would offer prayers that Christ would provide salvation for them, and awaken them to their condition.

And if asked by a fellow students, outside of a class session, outside of the dojo... I would openly share the gospel, and the impact of Christ on my life.

But I don't believe Christian martial artists ever need to evangelize in class, in fact, that would be imho inappropriate.

But there is no contradiction between being a follower of Christ, and a practicing jma martial artist, if one treads carefully.
/bow


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I would argue that it's religious in background. That doesn't mean it's still religious. Much of the "secular" side of Christmas is a hold-over from pagan traditions of the Yule. It's not religious anymore for most people (I certainly have no religious connection to a Christmas tree), though that's where it came from.



I would agree.  When someone sneezes even some atheists I know say "god bless you" on reflex.  When you speak of "breaking bread" with someone the reference has its origin in the Gospel of Matthew.  So many things in life have an origin that is somehow related to religion it isn't funny.  That doesn't mean the statements or rituals still maintain their religious meaning.

This isn't to say that you should make someone do something against their religious beliefs.  Only to say that the meaning of certain things change overtime and become formalized secular rituals, or can be done to simply show respect to another vs one that is showing adherence to an article of faith.

As an example I went to a Synagogue a few times with a girl I dated many years ago.  I wore a kippa out of respect even though I was raised Catholic. If I went to a Mosque I would take off my shoes.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 1, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm... Leaving off the whole Christian ideology and other issues, I just wanted to address one aspect of this thread, namely, that of the bowing in Japanese arts.
> 
> It is religious. Deal with it.
> 
> ...



I'd say that there is a major difference between the historical origin of something and its current meaning. It's the intent behind an action which makes it religious or not. I celebrate Christmas. I am not a Christian. What I celebrate is a secular holiday of good will and gift giving which happens to share the date, name and some of the pagan-derived window dressing as the religious holiday my Christian friends celebrate. (Interesting philosophical/theological question - if a Christian celebrates Christmas but is internally focused primarily/entirely on the gifts and the pagan-derived pageantry rather than on the birth of Christ, are they truly carrying out a Christian religious practice?)

Likewise, if a Karateka bows to a picture of the founder and claps his hands out of tradition, without any concern for or belief in spirits, is he or she practicing Shintoism? I would say no.

This is very different from the nature of a cow. Regardless of your attitude towards a cow - whether you see it as a sacred animal, a pet, or a tasty meal - it's still a hooved quadruped made out of meat. 

The next question is, does a Karateka's practice become less valuable or meaningful if he or she doesn't share in or care about the religious beliefs of the art's founders? Once again, I would say no. If you view Karate as just a vehicle for transmitting the cultural values of the original practitioners, I suppose you might disagree. Nevertheless, there are millions of Karate practitioners around the world who find value in their practice, even if they have brought their own meaning to the cultural trappings and rituals which have been carried along with the art.


----------



## Steve (Feb 1, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd say that there is a major difference between the historical origin of something and its current meaning. It's the intent behind an action which makes it religious or not. I celebrate Christmas. I am not a Christian. What I celebrate is a secular holiday of good will and gift giving which happens to share the date, name and some of the pagan-derived window dressing as the religious holiday my Christian friends celebrate. (Interesting philosophical/theological question - if a Christian celebrates Christmas but is internally focused primarily/entirely on the gifts and the pagan-derived pageantry rather than on the birth of Christ, are they truly carrying out a Christian religious practice?)
> 
> Likewise, if a Karateka bows to a picture of the founder and claps his hands out of tradition, without any concern for or belief in spirits, is he or she practicing Shintoism? I would say no.
> 
> ...


Yes.  Exactly.


----------



## John Brewer (Feb 1, 2017)

I think this is a touchy subject for some. For me what is in my heart when I bow is what counts.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd say that there is a major difference between the historical origin of something and its current meaning. It's the intent behind an action which makes it religious or not. I celebrate Christmas. I am not a Christian. What I celebrate is a secular holiday of good will and gift giving which happens to share the date, name and some of the pagan-derived window dressing as the religious holiday my Christian friends celebrate. (Interesting philosophical/theological question - if a Christian celebrates Christmas but is internally focused primarily/entirely on the gifts and the pagan-derived pageantry rather than on the birth of Christ, are they truly carrying out a Christian religious practice?)
> 
> Likewise, if a Karateka bows to a picture of the founder and claps his hands out of tradition, without any concern for or belief in spirits, is he or she practicing Shintoism? I would say no.
> 
> ...



I couldn't have said it better


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I would agree.  When someone sneezes even some atheists I know say "god bless you" on reflex.  When you speak of "breaking bread" with someone the reference has its origin in the Gospel of Matthew.  So many things in life have an origin that is somehow related to religion it isn't funny.  That doesn't mean the statements or rituals still maintain their religious meaning.
> 
> This isn't to say that you should make someone do something against their religious beliefs.  Only to say that the meaning of certain things change overtime and become formalized secular rituals, or can be done to simply show respect to another vs one that is showing adherence to an article of faith.
> 
> As an example I went to a Synagogue a few times with a girl I dated many years ago.  I wore a kippa out of respect even though I was raised Catholic. If I went to a Mosque I would take off my shoes.


I'm going to guess that the "breaking bread" reference has an older origin than the gospel of Matthew, and older than the birth of Jesus.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 1, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm going to guess that the "breaking bread" reference has an older origin than the gospel of Matthew, and older than the birth of Jesus.



I would as well, but as far as people using "written text" as a historical reference, that is apparently one of, if not the first that falls into a religious context at least


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> At minimum I would offer prayers that Christ would provide salvation for them, and awaken them to their condition.



See, I actually find this statement to be incredibly judgmental and offensive. 

I certainly don't need the prayers, and I resent the judgement over my life that is implied if someone would ever tell me they will pray for me.  Or if i think or otherwise know they are praying for me.

Don't bother.  No thanks.

And yes, I find it offensive when my mother does it too.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I would as well, but as far as people using "written text" as a historical reference, that is apparently one of, if not the first that falls into a religious context at least


That may be, but if it was written down, it was certainly a vocal/oral habit long long before that happened.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 1, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> That may be, but if it was written down, it was certainly a vocal/oral habit long long before that happened.


One could argue that of virtually anything.  As an example, many species of animal prostrate themselves to show submission to a dominant member of the species.  So one could argue that logic dictates that primitive man did the same prior to it being used in as religious context.  

You can even, sorta, see this dynamic at work in western history.  Servants would kneel on both knees to their master.  Then eventually it was felt that should be reserved for God, so people would kneel on one knee.  This evolved into a courtesy and then in the 1600s the bow became vogue for males.  I do Renaissance reenactments so I know this geeky stuff .


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 1, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> See, I actually find this statement to be incredibly judgmental and offensive.
> 
> I certainly don't need the prayers, and I resent the judgement over my life that is implied if someone would ever tell me they will pray for me.  Or if i think or otherwise know they are praying for me.
> 
> ...



Actually, you made an assumption here.

I never let the object of my prayers know that I am praying on their behalf.

The one exception is if said subject asked me to pray for them.


And to for one to resent a presumption of judgment and to assume or think someone is praying for you when they have never spoken or otherwise given indication that they are is....

well... foolishness and a waste of energy, time and emotion... which leads to negativity and a needless loss of mutual goodwill between classmates.

In the end it is not beneficial.
Life is far too short to make such leaps to  conclusions and harbor resentment.

As for me, I take any moment that I am offended, as one of life's learning moments, and seek to  understand the lesson behind the incident.

Most of the time, pride and ego are overinflated at the time I became offended.

Why should I even care if another person judges me? It doesn't matter if the judgement is valid or off base all together.

If it has value that will help me better my self.. then reflection and corrective action are in order, otherwise, its just part of the signal to noise ratio that is discarded.

An application of a word of wisdom from Big Brother Bruce:
"Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is specifically your own"


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> Actually, you made an assumption here.
> 
> I never let the object of my prayers know that I am praying on their behalf.
> 
> ...


If I have no idea someone is doing it, then it doesn't matter.  Some people are not as good at keeping it to themselves as others are.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> See, I actually find this statement to be incredibly judgmental and offensive.
> 
> I certainly don't need the prayers, and I resent the judgement over my life that is implied if someone would ever tell me they will pray for me.  Or if i think or otherwise know they are praying for me.
> 
> ...


I used to be bothered by this. But now I take a different view. If you knew someone was going through an addiction, you'd wish for them to get help, even if they weren't yet ready for help. This is the way many Christians view those of us who are not of their faith. They see us in peril, and want us not to be, so they pray. It does us no harm, and is well-intended. I'd be (and have been) irritated if they feel the need to tell me to "repent - you are going to Hell!" But if they want to quietly pray for me, I don't really care. I'd prefer they not tell me - there's some different motivation going on when they feel the need to tell me.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I used to be bothered by this. But now I take a different view. If you knew someone was going through an addiction, you'd wish for them to get help, even if they weren't yet ready for help. This is the way many Christians view those of us who are not of their faith. They see us in peril, and want us not to be, so they pray. It does us no harm, and is well-intended. I'd be (and have been) irritated if they feel the need to tell me to "repent - you are going to Hell!" But if they want to quietly pray for me, I don't really care. I'd prefer they not tell me - there's some different motivation going on when they feel the need to tell me.


Yup, and honestly it's an F-ed up arrogant view.  To decide that I need saving by their god, that my life decisions are putting my very soul in jeopardy, is honestly a disgusting position for someone to take.

Now if someone chooses to pray for someone else who is struggling with issues in life, and they share the same or similar fundamental religious beliefs, well that's fine.  The shared belief system can create common ground for it.

But to pray for someone's soul particularly BECAUSE of that persons religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is unacceptable BS pure and simple.  I'll turn around and make a blood sacrifice of a colony of bats to the dark god Ral or whomever else I might think up, to return the favor.  This can be a two-way street.

I don't spend any time at all dwelling on this. If anyone is praying for me, I am not specifically aware of it, tho I suspect certain family members may be doing so.  But if I'm not aware of it, then it's not an issue.  But as a point of discussion, this is absolutely how I feel about it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Yup, and honestly it's an F-ed up arrogant view.  To decide that I need saving by their god, that my life decisions are putting my very soul in jeopardy, is honestly a disgusting position for someone to take.
> 
> Now if someone chooses to pray for someone else who is struggling with issues in life, and they share the same or similar fundamental religious beliefs, well that's fine.  The shared belief system can create common ground for it.
> 
> ...


From their point of view, they are trying to help. How is that arrogant? You and I may feel it is misplaced, and our view of the religion (or religion in general, in my case) may be different, but a person who wants to help is being nice, even if what they do doesn't really help. A comparison (and please, nobody think I'm calling Christians "children" - it's just an easy analogy) would be if a child tries to help you dig a hole. You don't really need their help, and what they do is unlikely to actually be helpful, but it's sweet, anyway.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> From their point of view, they are trying to help. How is that arrogant? You and I may feel it is misplaced, and our view of the religion (or religion in general, in my case) may be different, but a person who wants to help is being nice, even if what they do doesn't really help. A comparison (and please, nobody think I'm calling Christians "children" - it's just an easy analogy) would be if a child tries to help you dig a hole. You don't really need their help, and what they do is unlikely to actually be helpful, but it's sweet, anyway.


It is arrogant because by making this decision, they have passed judgement over me and the decisions that I have made for myself.  They have decided that I am not to be trusted to make decisions for myself, and that they have a monopoly on correct religious beliefs, so much so that they need to pray for the saving of those who hold other beliefs.

If that isn't arrogant, then I can imagine a better example.  

You are right in that there is no direct harm there, the prayers have no effect one way or the other and does not hurt me in a direct way.  But it does encourage such arrogant thought and that can become harmful on a societal level.  The difference between this and ISIS is only a matter of degree in action taken.  At its heart, it is the same.


----------



## Steve (Feb 1, 2017)

I don't think its a big deal.  We all get judgy from time to time.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2017)

Steve said:


> I don't think its a big deal.  We all get judgy from time to time.


Sure we do.  But invoking one's deity becomes dangerous.


----------



## Steve (Feb 1, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure we do.  But invoking one's deity becomes dangerous.


I hear you.   You should have seen my 8th grade teacher, Mr. Linamen.   I was at the Lutheran school and he found out I had never been baptized.   We did devotions every morning in class, and on wednesdays we would actually head up to the church.   Not only did he pray for me, but the entire school prayed for me that next Wednesday.   I was embarrassed at the time, but I Think they were sincere, and so it was okay.

That's the key for me.  If you're "praying for me" because you think you're better and are looking for a way to be a jerk, screw you.   But if you're sincerely trying to look out for me, even if I don't really think it's needed, hey, thanks.   I appreciate it.  If it makes you feel better, it makes me feel better, too.   Why the heck not?

Related to this thread, if you think you need to act like you're Japanese to really learn karate, fine.  But that's not a universally held belief.   There's room for other opinions.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2017)

Steve said:


> I hear you.   You should have seen my 8th grade teacher, Mr. Linamen.   I was at the Lutheran school and he found out I had never been baptized.   We did devotions every morning in class, and on wednesdays we would actually head up to the church.   Not only did he pray for me, but the entire school prayed for me that next Wednesday.   I was embarrassed at the time, but I Think they were sincere, and so it was okay.
> 
> That's the key for me.  If you're "praying for me" because you think you're better and are looking for a way to be a jerk, screw you.   But if you're sincerely trying to look out for me, even if I don't really think it's needed, hey, thanks.   I appreciate it.  If it makes you feel better, it makes me feel better, too.   Why the heck not?
> 
> Related to this thread, if you think you need to act like you're Japanese to really learn karate, fine.  But that's not a universally held belief.   There's room for other opinions.


Sure, but it becomes blurred.  Where lies the line between good intention and becoming a jerk, even if not intended, or not realized, that one has become a jerk? Yes, there is room for different opinions.  When one prays for someone, especially if the motivation is a difference in religion, then that room for different opinions is being taken away.  Even if the subject of the prayer isn't aware of it.  The one doing the praying has established a dangerous (and downright wrong) precendent in their own mind.  That righteous, "we are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG" mentality that can lead to widespread violence

Religious extremists believe they are doing the right thing, doing god's work, when they kill non-believers.

Now I realize I am taking this to the nth degree but we do have an extreme example very much alive and well in ISIS, of where we his can lead.

But coming back to a personal level, I just find the notion very offensive, that someone, even if it is my own mother, thinks that my decisions in life are so poor that I need someone to step in on my behalf and ask some god to save me.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> From their point of view, they are trying to help. How is that arrogant? You and I may feel it is misplaced, and our view of the religion (or religion in general, in my case) may be different, but a person who wants to help is being nice, even if what they do doesn't really help. A comparison (and please, nobody think I'm calling Christians "children" - it's just an easy analogy) would be if a child tries to help you dig a hole. You don't really need their help, and what they do is unlikely to actually be helpful, but it's sweet, anyway.



Ok.  So say someone believes in an imaginary god.  I am helping them by getting them to see that? 

Or just being a duche.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, but it becomes blurred.  Where lies the line between good intention and becoming a jerk, even if not intended, or not realized, that one has become a jerk? Yes, there is room for different opinions.  When one prays for someone, especially if the motivation is a difference in religion, then that room for different opinions is being taken away.  Even if the subject of the prayer isn't aware of it.  The one doing the praying has established a dangerous (and downright wrong) precendent in their own mind.  That righteous, "we are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG" mentality that can lead to widespread violence
> 
> Religious extremists believe they are doing the right thing, doing god's work, when they kill non-believers.
> 
> ...


There's a world of difference between wishing someone well, silently and privately (even if that includes prayer or other religious observance), and forcing your views upon them because they are wrong. Those are not close to the same thing. Yes, there's a relationship (in both cases, they believe the other person is on the wrong path), but they are vastly different attitudes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok.  So say someone believes in an imaginary god.  I am helping them by getting them to see that?
> 
> Or just being a duche.


If you're trying to change their mind, then you're not doing something without bothering them. Very different from what I described.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If you're trying to change their mind, then you're not doing something without bothering them. Very different from what I described.



Exept in your analogy. Which would be a case of, child get out of my hole.

Ok would this be seen as helpfull to a christian if a satanist prayed to the devil that the Christian should abandon christ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Exept in your analogy. Which would be a case of, child get out of my hole.
> 
> Ok would this be seen as helpfull to a christian if a satanist prayed to the devil that the Christian should abandon christ?


No, my analogy doesn't have the child trying to change how you dig your hole.

And whether the Christian sees that as _attempted_ helpfulness (remember, my assertion doesn't assume it's actually helpful, just the intent) depends upon whether the Christian is open-minded or not. For most of them, they probably wouldn't see it that way, but I don't need to be as closed-minded as they are.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There's a world of difference between wishing someone well, silently and privately (even if that includes prayer or other religious observance), and forcing your views upon them because they are wrong. Those are not close to the same thing. Yes, there's a relationship (in both cases, they believe the other person is on the wrong path), but they are vastly different attitudes.


It is different, that is true.  The degree of action is different.  The roots are the same.  This is where it begins.  It's a jerky attitude.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> It is different, that is true.  The degree of action is different.  The roots are the same.  This is where it begins.


It is also usually where it ends. The root assumption is the same (the person has made a wrong choice), but he attitude is wholly different ("I want well for you" vs. "I will make you do what I say").


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It is also usually where it ends. The root assumption is the same (the person has made a wrong choice), but he attitude is wholly different ("I want well for you" vs. "I will make you do what I say").


----------



## Steve (Feb 2, 2017)

Huh.  I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


>


See also (at about 5:15):


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> See also (at about 5:15):



One holy city, 3 religions.... and then...the Crusades.....

In a philosophy of religion course in college, the Spanish Inquisition ws explained like this

Inquisitor: I fear for your soul and I truly love you, please convert

The Unclean: That is nice and thank you for caring, but I’m doing fine

Inquisitor: No, you don’t understand, I truly care about you and I worry about your soul…you must convert

The Unclean: No, really, I’m good. I appreciate the concern, but I’ll be fine

Inquisitor: Well then, to prove how much I care about you and your soul I will now have to torcher you until you convert to save you from yourself


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It is also usually where it ends. The root assumption is the same (the person has made a wrong choice), but he attitude is wholly different ("I want well for you" vs. "I will make you do what I say").


Usually, yes.  But it is a root attitude that can become dangerous.

And let me just be clear, my position here is really in response to the comment about praying for someone to be saved becaus that person has different religious beliefs.   That is toxic.

If someone wants to pray for a sick person to get better, that's fine.  It is useless, but it's harmless.  And it is still kind of jerky if the recipient may not want it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Usually, yes.  But it is a root attitude that can become dangerous.
> 
> And let me just be clear, my position here is really in response to the comment about praying for someone to be saved becaus that person has different religious beliefs.   That is toxic.
> 
> If someone wants to pray for a sick person to get better, that's fine.  It is useless, but it's harmless.  And it is still kind of jerky if the recipient may not want it.



At a hospital I worked at there was an employee (housekeeper) who was also an aspiring minister....he decided he would help the patients by praying for them...he decided to start in ICU....he walked in and the nurses thought he was there to clean the rooms....well..... imagine waking up, in the Intensive Care Unit, with some person praying over you....scared the living daylights out of a rather sick patient and the nurses found out when the patient hit the call light asking for help......and of course was completely convinced that the doctors, and nurses, were hiding something from them as it applied to their condition..... otherwise why would there be a guy praying for them in their room.....our would be minister got in heaps of trouble over that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 2, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> At a hospital I worked at there was an employee (housekeeper) who was also an aspiring minister....he decided he would help the patients by praying for them...he decided to start in ICU....he walked in and the nurses thought he was there to clean the rooms....well..... imagine waking up, in the Intensive Care Unit, with some person praying over you....scared the living daylights out of a rather sick patient and the nurses found out when the patient hit the call light asking for help......and of course was completely convinced that the doctors, and nurses, were hiding something from them as it applied to their condition..... otherwise why would there be a guy praying for them in their room.....our would be minister got in heaps of trouble over that.


Jeezuz.  Just...jeezuz.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 2, 2017)

Steve said:


> Huh.  I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.


Nobody ever does.


----------



## Buka (Feb 2, 2017)

Pray for me, fellas'.

Forgot to shut off my alarm clock this morning, threw a pillow at it when it went off. Good thing I missed, mighta' went straight to hell.

Pray for me, fellas'.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 4, 2017)

I know some may feel that the Christian judges others, after single-ing them out for the prayers etc. Thats not how I think.

The bible states that every human sins, that we all rebel against God... so I as a follower the doctrine of sola scriptura, and view myself as worse than others.

Now its the bible that makes the case thar we are all sinners, and all of us are in need of mercy from God. 

But most will reject God's offer of pardon.

I don't need to examine your life to see what type of sinner a person is. If their human... that is enough for me.

I don't judge. Thats God's job. As a Christian my role is like a hostage negotiater trying to offer terms of peace, & to help avoid a person from going to God's courtroom of justice.

Here is picture to help illustrate.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> I know some may feel that the Christian judges others, after single-ing them out for the prayers etc. Thats not how I think.
> 
> The bible states that every human sins, that we all rebel against God... so I as a follower the doctrine of sola scriptura, and view myself as worse than others.
> 
> ...



Nope.  Doesn't work like that.  

Your religion still has to be evidence based not dogma based. 

So pretend it is martial art.  You are trying to convince people your method is sound because barry the founder who is awesome said it works. 

So the rest of us go OK.  you show us how great your method is. 

And you either do.

Or you punk out.

Same with religion. You say your way is better.  You are the example of that.  Not the book and not god. 

That is how you inspire people to become better people.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Nope.  Doesn't work like that.
> 
> Your religion still has to be evidence based not dogma based.
> 
> ...




Negative.

Not all religions are goal oriented towards inspiring people to becoming better.

That is a side affect of following Christ.
But it is not the objective of being an adherent.

The Gospel is a transaction of faith. The faith comes by hearing the Word, and then exercising trust or belief in what has been spoken with regard to it.

The historical evidence of christianity is dispite being killed wholesale, by the tens of thousands by the Roman Empire... the greater the persecution the greater the growth of the faith.

Why? Because Christ was bodily raised ffrom the dead, as he foretold that he would be.

He promises forgiveness for all who put their trust in him. He promises that at his return, all of his followers will also be raised from the dead, with new bodies that will never age, become sick or die.

He offers the end of death and eternal life as a reward for trusting in him.

The burden of guilt and shame for living in rebellion against God, and the consequence of sin, having been forgiven.... leads to a sense of utmost gratitude.

This thankfulness at having a debt paid, which could never otherwise be discharged leads to a life marked by a profound change.

A desire to please God who instructs His people to love others, as much as they love themselves.

Such Christians who become awakened to their freedom from God's judgment have built more schools, hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens and fought to abolish slavery than any other group in history.

That is historically verifiable.

There are countless scores of people who were set free from addictions, and broken lives. God does this kind of stuff all the time..
These kinds of events are valid reasons.


Perhaps the most important reason to become a Christian would be so that you escape the righteous judgment of God and spend eternity with him. This can only be accomplished by trusting in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. 

Without Jesus, no one would ever have any hope of entering into the presence of God. 

After all, God is perfect and holy; and we are not. 

He must judge those who rebel against him. If he did not, he would be approving evil. 

Evil is doing such things as lying, stealing, etc. 

If you have ever lied or stolen, then you are a liar and a thief. 

God cannot let liars and thieves enter heaven. Because He is just.

So, in order to escape his righteous judgment it is necessary to trust God, and the means of deliverance he has provided is in the person of Christ. So, being delivered from judgment is a great reason.


Other reasons...
You can experience greater freedom from guilt and shame.

 We are all imperfect, and we all make mistakes of varying degrees. 

Some of us have done some very bad things; so bad that when we remember them, we feel real guilt and real shame. 

But when we become a Christian, we trust that Christ has forgiven us of all the evil that we have done. If he can forgive us, then we can be set free.

The experiencing of God's presence...

In addition, being a Christian means you will experience the presence of God in your life. 

It does not mean that everything will automatically get better and all your problems will go away. 



However, things usually get better when you follow God's word and do what is right. He rewards those who seek him (Luke 6:23; Colossians 3:24; Hebrews 11:6), and he does want good for us.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> Negative.
> 
> Not all religions are goal oriented towards inspiring people to becoming better.



Yeah but all the good ones are.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but all the good ones are.



Your claim is subjective. It it not objectively true.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 6, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> I know some may feel that the Christian judges others, after single-ing them out for the prayers etc. Thats not how I think.
> 
> The bible states that every human sins, that we all rebel against God... so I as a follower the doctrine of sola scriptura, and view myself as worse than others.
> 
> ...


I am curious to know how you would respond if someone told you that they would pray to Allah for you, that he lift the blinders from your eyes so you will see that Islam is the only true path, and all others are false and lead to hell. They are only trying to help you, to save you from your own wrong decisions.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 10, 2017)

Okay, I have a chance to get back to this, and there's a number of things that I feel need to be clarified... mainly as I feel most are coming at this from exactly the wrong cultural perspective, and are missing what is actually being said.

But first...



Steve said:


> It's possible that it's because your analogies kind of suck.  Nah.  You're right.  It couldn't be you.  You use so many words and speak with such authority, it would be inconceivable.


 
Grow up, Steve. Frankly, you have, yet again, missed the point, and not understood the analogy, as you can't grasp the actual message in the first place. But how about you simply ask for clarification instead of being, well, you?



Steve said:


> So then... yeah.  You were talking about karate.  Other stuff, too.  But yeah.  Karate.



Nice of you to think you understand what my understanding of Japanese arts are, Steve, but no, karate was folded into what I was talking about, but nowhere near to the degree of Aikido and Judo (and other definitively Japanese arts... Karate is more influenced by Taoism than Shinto, as it's more derived from Chinese approaches, and the art is a recent transplant into Japan, rather than being an expression of the Japanese culture itself). So no, not karate in that sense.



Steve said:


> Okay. So, broad strokes here, are you suggesting that the idea of homage to previous generations is a uniquely Shinto thing, or are you saying that bowing to the picture on the wall before and after each Karate (or whatever) class is uniquely Shinto?



No, you're looking in the wrong direction... I'm not saying it's uniquely Shinto, I'm saying that (in the case of bowing to the front of the dojo) it's specifically Shinto. It's not anything else. It's not "going through the motions"... it's not "a series of actions"... it's not even just a matter of "paying respect"... honestly, it's not even simply "derived from Shinto"... it is Shinto.



Steve said:


> Honestly, it tickles my funny bone that you are using a sport analogy.  That, with your history of sport vs street vs self defense, your first turn is to a sport analogy.



What are you talking about? Do you get how analogies work? Do you understand that this is nothing to do with that debate/discussion at all?



Steve said:


> But, yeah.  The sport analogy doesn't work because you are mixing up physical, tangible, demonstrable skill with a strictly spiritual pursuit.  A more correct analogy is that karate (or whatever) never applied is like tennis without a racquet.  Fighting skills never applied in a fight are like playing Wii tennis.   You're going through the motions, but who knows if the skills are transferable?



Again, you're looking at things that aren't a part of this at all... it's got nothing at all to do with "application"... that's a completely different concept and idea... and I have no idea where you got the idea that this is even anything to do with that.



Steve said:


> No, it's really not like this.  Your analogy is just.. .terrible, Chris.  Come on.  It's more like a vegetarian eating a tofurkey burger.



No, it's really not. To stretch your incorrect analogy, it's like the vegetarian eating a burger, but trying to tell themselves that it's this tofurkey abomination you describe. They're still eating a burger, no matter what they tell themselves... which is the point.



Steve said:


> It's more akin to the Brazilians taking a uniquely Japanese art, discarding the stuff they didn't need and building on what they did.  Is BJJ a Japanese art?  I'd say that it is not, but it's important to remember that it is derived from Japan.



What?? Steve, this makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the idea that the bowing in a Japanese art is a ritual taken from a native Japanese religious form known as Shinto... I don't even know where to start with the tangents you think you're seeing here... 



Steve said:


> In the same way, when a Christian celebrates Easter or Christmas, they are celebrating a Christian holiday even if we know that the timing and some of the rituals are of pagan origin.



No, it's not. You're conflating the origins of rituals with the rituals themselves. A Christian following the rituals of Christianity is following the rituals of Christianity... by the same token, a non-Christian following the rituals of Christianity is following the rituals of Christianity... even if they don't personally believe in the tenets or ideals, or even doctrine of the religion itself. This will come up again a few times, by the way... 



John Brewer said:


> I'm pretty sure this thread was someone asking about our organization not bowing. That being said we bow in class out of respect. Some pretty funny comments in the thread though.



Hmm... no, the thread wasn't specifically about your organisation bowing or not... there was a side issue of whether or not it was approaching religious reverence (in other arts), but that's something different... that said, you bow in class? Where does that come from? And do you know why it is done (not your own reasons... you've adopted the practices of something else for your own group, but do you understand what those practices are? That's my question here...)?



Steve said:


> Very much my opinion on the matter.  I am a heathen raised in a family of heathens.  But my parents thought it was important that we understand at least some of what most everyone around us believed.  So, as a kid, I went to a Catholic school for a few years, as well as a Lutheran school.  I participated in the rituals and devotions and prayers, and don't think too much about it one way or the other.  While I have no doubt that some of the other kids were actively worshipping, others, like myself, were simply, respectfully participating.
> 
> One can go to an Aikido school and mimic the motions out of respect, without moving into the category of worship.



A few things to realise here, though... even if all that you do is "simply mimic the motions", you are still engaging in the religious ritual... if you make the Sign of the Cross, it's a religious gesture/action, even if you aren't Christian yourself... same with any other religious action. And the act of bowing, whether you observe the religious realities of it or not, is a religious ritual.

Secondly, there is a misapplication of terminology here... there isn't a case of "worship" the same way there is in Western religions... 



Steve said:


> But the larger issue, I think, is one that I believe Chris Parker is trying to raise.  Or maybe I don't understand him.  But I THINK he's suggesting that if you aren't worshipping and are just going through the motions, you aren't REALLY training in that art.  I'm a guy who doesn't like the idea of bowing to O Sensei, and won't do it...  is it impossible for me to learn aikido?  Seems like Chris Parker is saying yes, I might train something, but it wouldn't be Aikido.
> 
> Or maybe I have it all wrong.



Yeah, you have it all wrong.

I'm saying that, no matter what you think you're doing, when you're engaging in the activity of bowing to the kamiza, you are engaging in a Shinto ritual. That's it. If you have a religious issue in engaging in the practices of another religion, be aware of this. You are, whether aware of it or not, engaging in the religious practice of Shinto.

The latter comment (regarding the lack of aspects of a tennis court in playing tennis, which I think is where you got these ideas from) is a little different... what I'm saying there is that if you genuinely remove all of the religious influences from the practice of Japanese martial arts, you end up with a shell of the actual system... as it permeates and influences far more of the system than most realise.



gpseymour said:


> I would argue that it's religious in background. That doesn't mean it's still religious. Much of the "secular" side of Christmas is a hold-over from pagan traditions of the Yule. It's not religious anymore for most people (I certainly have no religious connection to a Christmas tree), though that's where it came from.



No, it's religious in fact... not in background. It is specifically, intentionally, and definitively religious... it has never shied away from that, it has never removed itself from that. It'd be like saying going to Church, and attending Midnight Mass at Christmas is "religious in background", just because not everyone who is there are even Christian (some are there out of a sense of social conformity, some are simply following what their friends or family does, regardless of personal beliefs, and so on)... but the fact remains that it is a religious ceremony/act... as is the bowing to the kamiza in class. Regardless of the individuals personal beliefs.

Oh, and for the record, there isn't really any religious aspect to a Christmas tree... to some of the ornaments adorning it, yeah... but not the tree itself. That comes from something else... 



gpseymour said:


> I'd just tell them it's only worship if you're worshiping.



And again, that means something different in a Western sense to what is meant/intended in Eastern philosophies and belief systems.



gpseymour said:


> I have no problem bowing to a picture. It's weird to me - just a different starting ritual than I'm used to - but I've done it when attending seminars at dojos in Ueshiba's Aikido, and when visiting some.



And that's fine... unless you grew up with a lot of these concepts, they can seem very weird, especially to a Western sensibility... however, again, if there are religious concerns, you really should be aware that you'd be participating in a religious act. If you have no religious concerns, of course, it doesn't matter so much.

Remember that many in Japan have Shinto shrines in their own house... they're brought up surrounded by the rituals and trappings of Shinto and Buddhist festivities... the same way we are with Judeo-Christian ones. They are just part of the cultural environment... and have an influence on much of the culture itself, as religion plays a role in moral and ethical guidance for the group as well as the individual.



TSDTexan said:


> One of the few times I find myself in complete agreement with you.



Well.... that's nice of you to say... but, reading through your post, I'm not so sure you do agree so much... 



TSDTexan said:


> I am a Kyu belt within a Okinawan Karatedo, and at the Dojo its very stripped down. Almost Zen in its austerity.



That's a separate thing, really... yes, the design of a dojo is highly influenced by religious buildings and concepts, but the idea of "zen austerity" is something different, and specific to a particular approach to Buddhism... for the record.



TSDTexan said:


> But, we have our bows...  oh yeah we do.



Okay... so the questions are... what bows do you have? And why do you have them? Where do they come from?



TSDTexan said:


> As I am a Christian, but an atypical one at that, I don't feel troubled in my conscience with regard to a juxtaposition of opposing beliefs.
> 
> There are none.



Okay, cool. As said, if there aren't any religious concerns, then it's all good.



TSDTexan said:


> There are some issues that are not fundamental. And a few that are.
> 
> The Trinity, the virgin birth, the sinless life, substituionary death and resurrection, that salvation is a free gift of God, not earned by works...
> I will die on that hill, I cannot surrender those things.



Okay. Good example of personal religious expression and belief.



TSDTexan said:


> But..
> 
> If my school added a cubbyhole shrine with a statue of Buddha, and required me to burn incense to it, and bow before it... I would have to exit from training there.



And this would be a good example of expressing your religious beliefs, and adhering to them. The catch is, in many schools, there is a lot of activity which is the equivalent to this, without people recognising it... I mean, even when there is a little statue, and a bow... people dismiss it as not religious, as it's not part of their religion... which is missing the point... and fairly prevalent in this thread.



TSDTexan said:


> If there was a cubbyhole, and other students were allowed to light incense, on a opt out volunteer basis. My conscience would not be offended, but I would keep my silence in criticism of other's beliefs.
> 
> If outside of class I were pressured into a criticism of my fellow students beliefs, I would remain silent. Even if I have a personal opinion that opposes their beliefs.



Okay. To my mind, it would largely defeat the purpose to have it as an optional aspect... it's either there (as an integral, important aspect of the class), or it's not. And, if it's not, then there's no reason to have it there as an option. It'd be like having an optional synagogue, or church confessional, or mosque in the dojo.



TSDTexan said:


> I am there to train in the martial art of karate... not critique religious beliefs of others. And its their own life, and path to walk.



Okay. But the point is that much of karate (and even more so other, more natively Japanese arts) is religious in it's structure, themes, concepts, ideals, and make-up... to train in it is to engage in religious activity.



TSDTexan said:


> At minimum I would offer prayers that Christ would provide salvation for them, and awaken them to their condition.
> 
> And if asked by a fellow students, outside of a class session, outside of the dojo... I would openly share the gospel, and the impact of Christ on my life.



Okay. I will say that little to none of this is anything to do with my comments... so I'm not sure what you're finding in my words to agree with here, unless this is your tangent... 



TSDTexan said:


> But I don't believe Christian martial artists ever need to evangelize in class, in fact, that would be imho inappropriate.
> 
> But there is no contradiction between being a follower of Christ, and a practicing jma martial artist, if one treads carefully.
> /bow



Yeah... so... the issue isn't so much about there being a contradiction... my point was simply to make it clear that, no matter what someone chooses to believe about the bowing (to the kamiza in class), it is religious. That only becomes a concern if it's a concern to the person... 

The thing is, much of your post doesn't actually take into account what I was saying... so I'm not sure you got it well enough to agree completely with me there... 



Juany118 said:


> I would agree.  When someone sneezes even some atheists I know say "god bless you" on reflex.  When you speak of "breaking bread" with someone the reference has its origin in the Gospel of Matthew.  So many things in life have an origin that is somehow related to religion it isn't funny.  That doesn't mean the statements or rituals still maintain their religious meaning.



Except we're not talking about something "based in religion", we're talking about something that is, actually, genuinely, a religious ritual. It's not based in Shinto, it is a Shinto ritual. It always has been... it just didn't need to be explained to the Japanese who understood it from having the same shrines in their homes, and it wasn't explained to Westerners because it was just so intrinsically a part of the whole thing that, to separate it out would be like removing three quarters of the ingredients of a cake... sure, you still have milk and eggs, but you no longer have a cake... people just had the cake without knowing what went into it.



Juany118 said:


> This isn't to say that you should make someone do something against their religious beliefs.  Only to say that the meaning of certain things change overtime and become formalized secular rituals, or can be done to simply show respect to another vs one that is showing adherence to an article of faith.



Yeah, you shouldn't make anyone do anything against their religion, provided others aren't infringed or endangered of course, but the point is that this is not a case of something having had it's meaning changed, it's a case of something not having it's meaning understood or made clear.



Juany118 said:


> As an example I went to a Synagogue a few times with a girl I dated many years ago.  I wore a kippa out of respect even though I was raised Catholic. If I went to a Mosque I would take off my shoes.



And, due to the religious reasons for each of those behaviours, you would be engaging in the religious practices of each of those religions in those cases.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd say that there is a major difference between the historical origin of something and its current meaning.



I would agree if that's what we were talking about... but we're not talking about something that has developed out of a historical origin... we're talking about something that is now.



Tony Dismukes said:


> It's the intent behind an action which makes it religious or not.



This, I disagree with... in a way. 

The action itself is religious... yes, the action is associated with, and designed to express the intent, the action is a big part of it. Making the Sign of the Cross is an action... and is a religious action, no matter your intent. This is actually the heart of the issue that some have... the action itself is part of, or completely, a religious ritual. To take part in the action is to take part in a religious act... which, again, is why I am with Paul with his potential student that he showed out.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I celebrate Christmas. I am not a Christian. What I celebrate is a secular holiday of good will and gift giving which happens to share the date, name and some of the pagan-derived window dressing as the religious holiday my Christian friends celebrate. (Interesting philosophical/theological question - if a Christian celebrates Christmas but is internally focused primarily/entirely on the gifts and the pagan-derived pageantry rather than on the birth of Christ, are they truly carrying out a Christian religious practice?)



If you celebrate Christmas, it's religious... whether you partake in the religious side (internally) or not. I mean... holidays are literally "Holy Days"... is this forgotten?



Tony Dismukes said:


> Likewise, if a Karateka bows to a picture of the founder and claps his hands out of tradition, without any concern for or belief in spirits, is he or she practicing Shintoism? I would say no.



Yes. Yes, they are. Or, at least, they are taking part in a Shinto religious ritual.



Tony Dismukes said:


> This is very different from the nature of a cow. Regardless of your attitude towards a cow - whether you see it as a sacred animal, a pet, or a tasty meal - it's still a hooved quadruped made out of meat.



No, the difference you're talking about there is the value placed on the cow... in all cases, it's a cow. Same with the Shinto ritual. It's a Shinto ritual. No matter the value you put on it, whether you acknowledge it or not, it remains a Shinto ritual. 

The cow stays a cow... and a Shinto ritual stays a Shinto ritual.



Tony Dismukes said:


> The next question is, does a Karateka's practice become less valuable or meaningful if he or she doesn't share in or care about the religious beliefs of the art's founders? Once again, I would say no. If you view Karate as just a vehicle for transmitting the cultural values of the original practitioners, I suppose you might disagree. Nevertheless, there are millions of Karate practitioners around the world who find value in their practice, even if they have brought their own meaning to the cultural trappings and rituals which have been carried along with the art.



Sure... but the issue isn't what they bring in, it's what they ignore that's already present. Thing is, I haven't said anything about someone's practice being more of less valuable... I've simply spoken about what the reality is... and the reality is that a religious ritual is a religious ritual, no matter how it's observed.



Steve said:


> Related to this thread, if you think you need to act like you're Japanese to really learn karate, fine.  But that's not a universally held belief.   There's room for other opinions.



And where has anyone even suggested that you needed to act like you're Japanese to really learn karate? What has been said (by me) is that the rituals, such as the bowing to the kamiza, seen in many traditional dojo, are definitively religious in every sense... and that, if you're denying that, you're denying yourself a large proportion of the way the art is structured and designed... as well as the reasons for it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> No, it's religious in fact... not in background. It is specifically, intentionally, and definitively religious... it has never shied away from that, it has never removed itself from that. It'd be like saying going to Church, and attending Midnight Mass at Christmas is "religious in background", just because not everyone who is there are even Christian (some are there out of a sense of social conformity, some are simply following what their friends or family does, regardless of personal beliefs, and so on)... but the fact remains that it is a religious ceremony/act... as is the bowing to the kamiza in class. Regardless of the individuals personal beliefs.
> 
> Oh, and for the record, there isn't really any religious aspect to a Christmas tree... to some of the ornaments adorning it, yeah... but not the tree itself. That comes from something else...


No, it would be like going to an event where people genuflect to the front of the room in a non-religious context, not inside a church. Nobody - quite literally nobody - I have trained with is Shinto, or sees bowing to the front of the dojo as anything religious. Therefor, the intent (in that usage) is not religious. It was originally, and probably still is in some places (I would assume the religious intent survives in Japan, at least).

It was religious, but no longer is in some contexts. For most of us, it is no more religious than looking at a photo of a hand father who left us the nice house we live in, and saying, "Thanks, Grandad!"

As for the Christmas tree, it actually is most likely derived from a Viking worship, though some of the names and rituals in some languages appear to be linked to ancient Celtic religious practice. I doubt anyone in the US is worshiping Balder when they put one up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> No, the difference you're talking about there is the value placed on the cow... in all cases, it's a cow. Same with the Shinto ritual. It's a Shinto ritual. No matter the value you put on it, whether you acknowledge it or not, it remains a Shinto ritual.
> 
> The cow stays a cow... and a Shinto ritual stays a Shinto ritual.


I think you have the analogy a bit off, Chris. In some contexts, the cow is sacred (religious). In others, it is a food source. In some contexts the bow is a religious ritual, in others it is a show of respect. The cow is always a cow, and the bow is always a bow.


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2017)

Chris, others.  Many others.  Have said exactly what I've said.   If you don't understand my posts, look at the several,others you have chosen not to respond to, which express the same idea as I have.   Maybe they were more clear.   

Your analogy just isn't a good one.   It happens.  Let it go.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> No, it would be like going to an event where people genuflect to the front of the room in a non-religious context, not inside a church. Nobody - quite literally nobody - I have trained with is Shinto, or sees bowing to the front of the dojo as anything religious. Therefor, the intent (in that usage) is not religious. It was originally, and probably still is in some places (I would assume the religious intent survives in Japan, at least).



And my point is that doesn't matter... it is a religious (Shinto) ritual.



gpseymour said:


> It was religious, but no longer is in some contexts. For most of us, it is no more religious than looking at a photo of a hand father who left us the nice house we live in, and saying, "Thanks, Grandad!"



Yeah, doesn't matter. It's still a religious ritual, whether you observe that or not. It can not be religious to you (and your observation), but that doesn't change the fact that it's a religious ritual... and anyone whose religion forbids them from taking part in other religions rituals and practices should be aware of that.



gpseymour said:


> As for the Christmas tree, it actually is most likely derived from a Viking worship, though some of the names and rituals in some languages appear to be linked to ancient Celtic religious practice. I doubt anyone in the US is worshiping Balder when they put one up.



There's a number of theories as to the origin of the Christmas tree... none of which are related to Christmas... which was my point.



gpseymour said:


> I think you have the analogy a bit off, Chris. In some contexts, the cow is sacred (religious). In others, it is a food source. In some contexts the bow is a religious ritual, in others it is a show of respect. The cow is always a cow, and the bow is always a bow.



No, that's again a value placed on the cow. As you say, some will see it as sacred, some purely as a food source, others as a financial resource... but it's always a cow. Same thing... the Shinto ritual isn't the bow... the bow is part of the ritual... and the ritual is always a Shinto ritual, no matter what the religious bent of the person performing it is.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 10, 2017)

Steve said:


> Chris, others.  Many others.  Have said exactly what I've said.   If you don't understand my posts, look at the several,others you have chosen not to respond to, which express the same idea as I have.   Maybe they were more clear.
> 
> Your analogy just isn't a good one.   It happens.  Let it go.



Steve, I understand your posts. Thing is, none of you are looking at what is actually being said... you're all looking purely at a single physical action, which is not what's going on. I get that none of you are Shinto-ists... and that this is a bit outside your wheelhouse. That's why I'm trying to explain it. It doesn't seem to be hitting, though... which isn't the fault of the analogy, frankly, it's that this is so far outside of what you recognise and know, that it's not something any of you are able to get your heads around.

The bowing ceremony is a Shinto ritual. That's it. It doesn't matter if you call it something else, if you acknowledge it or not, or anything else... it's still a Shinto ritual. A bow all by itself? Yeah, probably not... but the act of bowing to the kamiza? That's Shinto... no matter what the religious beliefs of the person are.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> And my point is that doesn't matter... it is a religious (Shinto) ritual.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, you're ignoring the points I'm making. I'll just disagree with you and leave it at that.


----------



## John Brewer (Feb 10, 2017)

I guess I should have used a comma in that sentence. This thread was someone asking about our organization, not about whether we bow or not. Hopefully that is clearer. I study Kenpo as it was taught to me. We bow to each other out of respect, that's it. 

"I'm pretty sure this thread was someone asking about our organization not bowing. That being said we bow in class out of respect. Some pretty funny comments in the thread though."

Hmm... no, the thread wasn't specifically about your organisation bowing or not... there was a side issue of whether or not it was approaching religious reverence (in other arts), but that's something different... that said, you bow in class? Where does that come from? And do you know why it is done (not your own reasons... you've adopted the practices of something else for your own group, but do you understand what those practices are? That's my question here...)?


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2017)

Chris, if you were simply saying that this particular ritual is a Shinto ritual and if you are doing it, you are doing a Shinto ritual, there would be a lot less reaction to your posts.  This is pretty straightforward:  _"The bowing ceremony is a Shinto ritual. That's it. It doesn't matter if you call it something else, if you acknowledge it or not, or anything else... it's still a Shinto ritual." _ When I went to a Lutheran Church for service, there is no question that I'm participating in Lutheran rituals. 

When you extend that pretty straightforward point further, suggesting that, by removing the Shinto worship from the training, you are studying a shell of a system, it suggests you are making a larger point.  You say things like, _"[if] you genuinely remove all of the religious influences from the practice of Japanese martial arts, you end up with a shell of the actual system... as it permeates and influences far more of the system than most realize."  
_
I think there's room to distinguish between tradition and religion, largely to do with intent.  There are karate dojos all over the USA and Europe that have removed Shinto worship entirely from their schools, even if they honor the traditional trappings of the religion.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 10, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> And my point is that doesn't matter... it is a religious (Shinto) ritual.



*Chris is correct in this aspect*.  It doesn't matter what you or I think it is a religious Shinto ritual.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Chris is correct in this aspect*.  It doesn't matter what you or I think it is a religious Shinto ritual.


The ritual is religious. The practice of it need not be.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 10, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Chris is correct in this aspect*.  It doesn't matter what you or I think it is a religious Shinto ritual.



What was the bow called before the Japanese established Shintoism as their animistic 'national' religion?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The ritual is religious. The practice of it need not be.



That is an interesting concept.  In one sense it might be comfortable to believe it. 

However, can I really separate the two so easily?  Suppose I wanted to study some aspect of someone's religion, and one of the precepts of the aspect I wanted to study was that I was required to dance without clothing, before a large idol, and then afterwards engage in perverted acts with large animals. 

Could I as a Christian, whose religion would strictly forbid doing that, do that, saying it was OK because I wasn't practicing the religion?


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 10, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I am curious to know how you would respond if someone told you that they would pray to Allah for you, that he lift the blinders from your eyes so you will see that Islam is the only true path, and all others are false and lead to hell. They are only trying to help you, to save you from your own wrong decisions.



I would thank them for their concern.

If they are open for dialogue and or civil debate.. I would politely ask them to engage with me.

If they were closed, and rude/pushy, I would thank them and be upon my way.

The following bible verse  (see picture)
Instructs Christians not to let conversations with  people who are against turning to faith in Christ, *deteriorate* into strife.

If they are bound by the devil, in a false religion, we turn to God ( privately ) in prayer for that person.

There are many who claim to be Christian who by their actions defy Christ, and the bible.

They are mean, rude, hostile and belligerent.

I think they aren't really christians at all.
But are self deceived, having no faith at all, as evidenced by their lack of gentleness.

Christians are obligated to be gentle to all men (or women)


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> What was the bow called before the Japanese established Shintoism as their animistic 'national' religion?



Shinto is first written about in the 8th century, state Shinto does not come into existence until the late 1800s


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> That is an interesting concept.  In one sense it might be comfortable to believe it.
> 
> However, can I really separate the two so easily?  Suppose I wanted to study some aspect of someone's religion, and one of the precepts of the aspect I wanted to study was that I was required to dance without clothing, before a large idol, and then afterwards engage in perverted acts with large animals.
> 
> Could I as a Christian, whose religion would strictly forbid doing that, do that, saying it was OK because I wasn't practicing the religion?


That's an interesting question and I think I get what you mean.  It's muddy, though, because you're describing actions which, independent of any religious connotation, would likely be reprehensible to most people.  In other words, it's hard to get to the root of your question because the objection to the actions involved are much more universal than culture or religion.

There are a couple of interesting questions here, though.  The first is, if something is religious to one person, does that mean it is inherently religious?  If I worship by going to a church every sunday, does that mean everyone who goes to church is necessarily religious?  The answer could be yes, but as a practical matter, that's not always true.  I don't think anyone would argue that whether you are religious or not, going to church is a religious act. But going to church is inherently a manifestation of Christian worship.  It's like the bowing ritual Chris describes.

_EDIT:  To finish the thought, there are other actions that are religious to some and not to others.  In other words, some religious acts are not unique to a religion or even inherently religious.  When I bow my head I'm not praying, but others are and for them, it is a religious act.  _

Is training in Karate or Aikido or Jujutsu a manifestation of Shinto worship?  It appears that Chris is suggesting that Shintoism infuses everything, so that training Karate or Aikido or what have you, is inherently religious.  Yes, I get that the bowing ritual is a Shinto ritual.  No one disputes that.  but the larger question is, can you learn Aikido and NOT practice Shintoism?  Is it possible to decouple the practice of a Japanese martial art and the worship of a Japanese religion?  Or does it become, as Chris suggests, an empty shell?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 10, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> Shinto is first written about in the 8th century, state Shinto does not come into existence until the late 1800s



I think it was formalized about 800 years ago, but not 'state Shinto' if I remember correctly.

That was sort of my point.  The Chinese have been doing it for a very long time, as well as the Koreans.  No doubt many countries influenced willingly or unwillingly have been doing bows as part of their culture, and sometimes as part of some of their religions, for a very long time.  There may have been times when culture influenced a religion, and times when religion was able to control culture.  But the bow is not unique to Shinto, and I always thought it more of cultural practice that got incorporated into some religions.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 10, 2017)

Steve said:


> That's an interesting question and I think I get what you mean.  It's muddy, though, because you're describing actions which, independent of any religious connotation, would likely be reprehensible to most people.  In other words, it's hard to get to the root of your question because the objection to the actions involved are much more universal than culture or religion.
> 
> There are a couple of interesting questions here, though.  The first is, if something is religious to one person, does that mean it is inherently religious?  If I worship by going to a church every sunday, does that mean everyone who goes to church is necessarily religious?  The answer could be yes, but as a practical matter, that's not always true.  But, I don't think anyone would argue that whether you are religious or not, going to church is a religious act. But going to church is inherently a manifestation of Christian worship.  It's like the bowing ritual Chris describes.
> 
> Is training in Karate or Aikido or Jujutsu a manifestation of Shinto worship?  It appears that Chris is suggesting that Shintoism infuses everything, so that training Karate or Aikido or what have you, is inherently religious.  Yes, I get that the bowing ritual is a Shinto ritual.  No one disputes that.  but the larger question is, can you learn Aikido and NOT practice Shintoism?  Is it possible to decouple the practice of a Japanese martial art and the worship of a Japanese religion?  Or does it become, as Chris suggests, an empty shell?



Yes, there is much to think on, and many paths no doubt.  But as to your first paragraph, we don't know how big the "Golden Calf" was, but read Exodus chapter 32.

As to the second paragraph, I don't know if going to church is always a religious act.  I think I can agree that for some it is intended to appear to be a religious act.  I do think you can learn a martial art and not make bowing a religious act.  I also think that the bowing in some martial arts is not a religious act.  But being a Christian and going to church, or seeking to evaluate Christianity, is not like the bowing Chris Parker describes.



> Is training in Karate or Aikido or Jujutsu a manifestation of Shinto worship?  It appears that Chris is suggesting that Shintoism infuses everything, so that training Karate or Aikido or what have you, is inherently religious.



I would guess if you do it as Chris Parker apparently does, it might be.  I doubt it would be a requirement other than Aikido.  But don't take my word for it.  I only know what I have seen in programs about Aikido, and I haven't seen that in Karate or Jujutsu, but I guess it could be there as well.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 10, 2017)

A good little excerpt about the Kamiza, that Chris mentioned.

In most cases, that I have seen...
The religious practice was lost in the translation to western culture, with western religious beliefs. References to Buddhism/shintoism were politely swept under the rug.

 In place, the substitute of Respect/honor the Lineage was employed.

As I have experienced the same as the pdf states ... I agree with it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think it was formalized about 800 years ago, but not 'state Shinto' if I remember correctly.
> 
> That was sort of my point.  The Chinese have been doing it for a very long time, as well as the Koreans.  No doubt many countries influenced willingly or unwillingly have been doing bows as part of their culture, and sometimes as part of some of their religions, for a very long time.  There may have been times when culture influenced a religion, and times when religion was able to control culture.  But the bow is not unique to Shinto, and I always thought it more of cultural practice that got incorporated into some religions.



I have no horse in this race but I believe the point Chris is trying to make is he is not just talking about a bow, he is talking about a bow to a Kamiza which is the location of a small Shinto shrine called a kamidana, which is a miniature household altars provided to enshrine a Shinto kami.

I'm a CMA guy so it does not much matter to me, but that is how I have been reading this as it applies to Japanese Martial Arts who bow to a Kamiza


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> That is an interesting concept.  In one sense it might be comfortable to believe it.
> 
> However, can I really separate the two so easily?  Suppose I wanted to study some aspect of someone's religion, and one of the precepts of the aspect I wanted to study was that I was required to dance without clothing, before a large idol, and then afterwards engage in perverted acts with large animals.
> 
> Could I as a Christian, whose religion would strictly forbid doing that, do that, saying it was OK because I wasn't practicing the religion?


If you feel you can participate in the ritual without actually doing the worshiping, then you could. However, it would probably feel wrong to you. That's a personal judgment you'd have to make for yourself.

Here's my view. I'm areligious (I don't participate in any religion, nor subscribe to any group beliefs). I can make the sign of the cross without it being religious to me. It feels like an empty act - no real significance to me - but it doesn't mean I'm practicing Catholicism (where I grew up) if I do it. In fact, it's a matter of habit for me when I'm at a Catholic mass (with friends, at a wedding/funeral, etc.). I just do it. There's no meaning behind it for me. Now, in that case, I'm participating in the Catholic ritual in the context of a mass, so that's arguably still religious, though I'm not actually participating in the religion (unless one were to hold that mindless acts are somehow the religion, rather than the mindful purpose behind the acts). If, however, I make the sign of the cross absent the religious context (which I actually do - when a politician says something really stupid), it has no real religious significance. It's like the "bless you" someone mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't actually mean "may God bring blessings upon you so your soul won't leave your body" (the original intention of the act). I am just being polite, in a way that is appropriate for the culture.

The same is true when I bow. I bow to the training space when I enter and leave, as a show of respect for what I and my students do there. I bow to students and instructors (depending upon my role) at the beginning of classes. When in a dojo where they bow to the shrine, I bow to the shrine. I do it because it's what I've always done. In none of those contexts - in my experience - is there any religious intent. The origin of the ritual was religious, and it still is in some contexts, but not in any of the contexts I've been in.

This, admittedly, is a bit different for me than some people. Religion carries no religious significance to me, so the religious rituals are just rituals, and nothing sacred. I respect them because they are important to others. For those with religious views, they may find it unsettling to participate in rituals with foundations in other religions.

I think the issue here is that this becomes a philosophical discussion. It's largely a matter of viewpoint, so there will be no definitive answer (my issue with Chris' definitive stance). Religious rituals are only religious so long as someone intends them to be. Otherwise, every religion would have to be on constant guard that they didn't do any ritual the same as some other religion and accidentally practice that religion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> I have no horse in this race but I believe the point Chris is trying to make is he is not just talking about a bow, he is talking about a bow to a Kamiza which is the location of a small Shinto shrine called a kamidana, which is a miniature household altars provided to enshrine a Shinto kami.
> 
> I'm a CMA guy so it does not much matter to me, but that is how I have been reading this as it applies to Japanese Martial Arts who bow to a Kamiza


I understand that point. However, a religious item (including the kamidana) doesn't automatically retain its religious aspect when someone uses it. The Buddha I have on my desk downstairs is a reminder of some philosophical concepts. I have a couple of angels for my Christmas tree because they are pretty. I celebrate Christmas as a cultural time. Religious practice is only religious while it maintains a religious context for the individuals involved. If I reference the Christian texts, there's no prohibition (as most Christians interpret it) against having pictures, statues, etc. If one worships those, however, they become idols. Otherwise, they remain art.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Religious rituals are only religious so long as someone intends them to be. Otherwise, every religion would have to be on constant guard that they didn't do any ritual the same as some other religion and accidentally practice that religion.



The Intent of an adherent or follower of a system of beliefs does not cause the ritual to be religious. 

The same is true for a non-follower performing the identical action in  the same setting, sans religious Intent.

It the fact/truth that it a religious rite is "A Priori".


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 10, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> The Intent of an adherent or follower of a system of beliefs does not cause the ritual to be religious.
> 
> The same is true for a non-follower performing the identical action in  the same setting, sans religious Intent.
> 
> It the fact/truth that it a religious rite is "A Priori".




Also, a contradiction to your second clause would be the reading aloud of a "sacred writings" to an assembly of believers.

This is a Rite  found within countless religious systems. But this common feature doesn't mean everyone is practicing other religions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 10, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> The Intent of an adherent or follower of a system of beliefs does not cause the ritual to be religious.
> 
> The same is true for a non-follower performing the identical action in  the same setting, sans religious Intent.
> 
> It the fact/truth that it a religious rite is "A Priori".


So, you would hold that all current religious practices were religious from their first moment of use, and are always religious even when those doing them are unaware of the religion? What about practices that predate a given religion. Are they retroactively religious?


----------



## Steve (Feb 10, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> I have no horse in this race but I believe the point Chris is trying to make is he is not just talking about a bow, he is talking about a bow to a Kamiza which is the location of a small Shinto shrine called a kamidana, which is a miniature household altars provided to enshrine a Shinto kami.
> 
> I'm a CMA guy so it does not much matter to me, but that is how I have been reading this as it applies to Japanese Martial Arts who bow to a Kamiza


Totally agree that this seems to be one of the points Chris is trying to make, and it's a fair point.   I am not sure that's the only point Chris is trying to make. 


gpseymour said:


> If you feel you can participate in the ritual without actually doing the worshiping, then you could. However, it would probably feel wrong to you. That's a personal judgment you'd have to make for yourself.
> 
> Here's my view. I'm areligious (I don't participate in any religion, nor subscribe to any group beliefs). I can make the sign of the cross without it being religious to me. It feels like an empty act - no real significance to me - but it doesn't mean I'm practicing Catholicism (where I grew up) if I do it. In fact, it's a matter of habit for me when I'm at a Catholic mass (with friends, at a wedding/funeral, etc.). I just do it. There's no meaning behind it for me. Now, in that case, I'm participating in the Catholic ritual in the context of a mass, so that's arguably still religious, though I'm not actually participating in the religion (unless one were to hold that mindless acts are somehow the religion, rather than the mindful purpose behind the acts). If, however, I make the sign of the cross absent the religious context (which I actually do - when a politician says something really stupid), it has no real religious significance. It's like the "bless you" someone mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't actually mean "may God bring blessings upon you so your soul won't leave your body" (the original intention of the act). I am just being polite, in a way that is appropriate for the culture.
> 
> ...


Yes!  I wish I could agree with this post twice and like it, too.  As usual, you articulate clearly what I'm trying unsuccessfully to say myself.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I understand that point. However, a religious item (including the kamidana) doesn't automatically retain its religious aspect when someone uses it. The Buddha I have on my desk downstairs is a reminder of some philosophical concepts. I have a couple of angels for my Christmas tree because they are pretty. I celebrate Christmas as a cultural time. Religious practice is only religious while it maintains a religious context for the individuals involved. If I reference the Christian texts, there's no prohibition (as most Christians interpret it) against having pictures, statues, etc. If one worships those, however, they become idols. Otherwise, they remain art.



No it doesn't, but its origin is in Shinto, as is your Buddha status origin is from Buddhism as are the angels from a religious origin and the Christian text you reference have a religious origin as well. None of that makes you a practitioner of those religions, nor does you having any of these, pictures, statues, ornaments, or bowing to a kamiza, or quoting a religious text make you a practitioner of those religions, it is just where they originate from.

Bottom like bowing to a kamiza has it origins in Shinto, it is a Shinto ritual, and it can be a religious act. That does not mean you do it as a religious act or a Shinto ritual, nor does it mean by bowing to a kaiza you are a Shintoist.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 11, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> I have no horse in this race but I believe the point Chris is trying to make is he is not just talking about a bow, he is talking about a bow to a Kamiza which is the location of a small Shinto shrine called a kamidana, which is a miniature household altars provided to enshrine a Shinto kami.
> 
> I'm a CMA guy so it does not much matter to me, but that is how I have been reading this as it applies to Japanese Martial Arts who bow to a Kamiza




A subtle point too... is that Karate wasnt Japanese, it was Ryukyu or Okinawan.

In essence it was not influenced by Shinto rituals until it was exported to mainland Japan.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 11, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> A subtle point too... is that Karate wasnt Japanese, it was Ryukyu or Okinawan.
> 
> In essence it was not influenced by Shinto rituals until it was exported to mainland Japan.



*Assimilation Practices in Okinawa*

In looking at Meiji restoration policies in Okinawa one can see major attempts to bring the Okinawan population into both the educational and religious sphere of the Japanese national polity. In terms of education, for example, this meant extending the 1872 Imperial Rescript on Education to the Okinawan population. This proved to be the single most important part of Japan's nationalization policy, for through educational indoctrination, the Japanese government sought to inculcate a strong sense of Japanese national identity in the Okinawan people. Through this process, Japan sought to consciously sever any ties to China that the Okinawan people still held on to, while also ending any associations that the Okinawan people had to the old Ryukyu Kingdom and it's monarchy. This process became absolutely essential for the later introduction of military inscription in 1898, which proved to be an integral part of Japan's expansionist policies.

Despite the desire on the part of the Okinawans to partake of the newly expanded educational system, the promulgation of Japanese literacy proved difficult indeed. On the one hand, the Okinawan people were excited about the opportunity to access an education, as it had always been considered more of a privilege for the upper class. On the other hand, however, the Okinawan peoples were reluctant to send their children to the Japanese schools, to be taught by these Yamatunchu, or mainland, strangers. In many ways, the Okinawan people had good reason to worry, since the educational program sought to consciously eradicate the Okinawan language (Hogen) and culture, indoctrinate the children with Japanese nationalism, and revere the emperor as a god. Yet even though the Japanese sought to educate the Okinawan population, they didn't create a single high school on the island. The failure to create such a high school demonstrates the dual nature of the educational process, in it's push to promote education and learning, but only in order to bring about the inculcation of nationalistic Japanese values.

At this point it is important to recognize the role of language promotion within Okinawa under the education policy and to realize the suppression that the indigenous language underwent. In many ways the question of language became a very important question for Okinawans, since the Japanese government felt that the Japanese language helped express the essence of the Japanese character. For if this viewpoint is taken into consideration, there remains the question of whether or not Hogen represents a separate language or a dialect (albeit far-distant). The answer to this question places a great deal of power in the hands of linguists, in defining the lines between what constitutes a language and what constitutes a dialect. In fact, the answers to this question are varied and subjective, and are usually based on the political viewpoint of the linguist attempting to determine these definitions. The most conclusive statement that any linguist can agree on is that traditional Ryukyuan speech is unintelligible to the Japanese, but unmistakably related to it. Many Japanese linguists see Hogen as a dialect, but that serves to back up the nationalistic attitude that Okinawa is a part of Japan, and always has been. Perhaps, in some sense, the best way to describe the relationship between the two modes of speech is to describe the relationship between the two as "cognate languages," much as Spanish and Italian are cognate languages. In any case the suppression of Hogen became a painful reality in the process of nationalization that served to cut off ties with the ancestral past.

Two other changes proved fundamental along with the shift in education policies, and helped define the process of assimilation. The first involved the introduction of the printing press in 1880 to "facilitate government business." The second involved the setting up of a newspaper, the Ryukyu Shimpo, by the governor of Okinawa. Both of these moves had tremendous impacts on Okinawa especially in terms of promoting Japanese nationalism. In many ways these two moves firmly established Japanese as the official language, and established it's dominance over the Shuri dialect of the Ryukyu Kingdom's court, which had previously been the official language of Ryukyuan discourse. Even further, the development of the newspapers also gave the citizenry a sense of connectedness with their fellow Japanese nationals, since the newspapers reported on national affairs as well. Both of these changes proved extremely important to the growth of a Japanese-oriented national consciousness.

In many ways the assimilation process in the educational system proved closely related to the attempts by the government to bring about religious uniformity as well. This can be seen in the way in which the Ministry of Education placed pictures of the emperor and empress in every school in Okinawa, and treated these pictures as semi-sacred objects. Due to the longstanding and unique nature of Okinawan religious institutions, Okinawan assimilation policies had a particular task in bringing about an alteration of traditional religious practices. To that end it designated traditional Okinawan spiritual sites such as the ancient Gokoku-ji shrine of the Nami-no-ue bluff as a state shrine, controlled by the Japanese government. Later on, this shrine was designated as the center of religious activity for the prefecture. The shrine, which referred to symbols of the ancient Ryukyuan kings, contained a reference to an ancient king named Tametomo, which the Japanese government stated was a descendant of the imperial house of Japan. In this way, the Japanese government sought to encourage Okinawans to think of themselves as directly related to Japan. Even further, these attempts to link indigenous religious sites to Shinto nationalist sites continued throughout the islands. The Japanese government would often place new shrines next to ancient local shrines and sought to transfer indigenous religious allegiances to the new sites. All of this demonstrates how nationalistic influences sought to bring all indigenous religious practices under the control of the state sponsored Shinto religion.

Yet despite these attempts to bring Okinawa into the educational and religious sphere of Japan, it still maintained a vested interest in treating Okinawa as a colony, especially in terms of governmental affairs. For despite the attempts and successes that were achieved in making the Okinawans adopt Japanese cultural norms and allegiances, the local residents were still prevented from participating in governmental politics. In many cases, Japan would use Okinawa as a training ground for governmental administrators, before promoting those people to posts in other parts of the country. While the Meiji Constitution promised wider representation in the National Diet for local control of local affairs, officials continued to state that because of the Okinawan people's adherence to their language, and because Okinawa's economic system had not fully changed to embrace the capitalism of Japan, that Okinawans could not be promoted to official positions in Okinawa. All of these arguments served to hide deeper motivations for keeping Okinawa under Japanese political control, rooted in the abiding prejudice held by many administrators. Most Japanese bureaucratic officials coveted the power that they maintained over Okinawan affairs, and focused on establishing systems of control in the prefecture, in the form of police, judicial, and taxation offices. All of these considerations showed that in most respects, Okinawa remained a colony, and was treated as such.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 11, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, you would hold that all current religious practices were religious from their first moment of use, and are always religious even when those doing them are unaware of the religion? What about practices that predate a given religion. Are they retroactively religious?



Clause 1:
"So, you would hold that all current religious practices were religious from their first moment of use"

My response:
Your use of the absolute 'all' makes me inclined to say No.
Because I don't have enough information to say a categorical yes, therefore I will say i dont know.

Clause 2:
and are always religious even when those doing them are unaware of the religion?


My Response:
An action or practice taken from a religion is still a religious action, at least from the viewpoint of the others (in general) who are practicing that system of belief. 

If an athiest goes to a liberal Catholic Church, and decides (for giggles) to perform the act of receiving communion, he has performed a religious action in the view of the father/pastor, and the members of that church.

The atheist is able to be ignorant of the knowledge that the Catholic Faith states that he literally ate and drank the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, and still actually do the act.

It was really just wine or grape juice and unleavened bread. But by eating and drinking it he performed a religious action.

Now some religions require intentionality to be present, as well as a measure of informed consent to view the work/act/practice to be viable or valid.

Lets look at the sacrament of marriage.
From the bible-believer christian worldview,
God created this Institution with the creation of Eve for Adam to be able to fulfill the edict "be fruitful and reproduce".

He created them male and female. And God purposed this pairing to be the bedrock of the family unit.

In this worldview, all valid marriages are sacred/religious. And a male-male, or female wedding doesn't actually count as a valid marriage.

To the bible believer, who submits to the authority of scripture every valid marriage is sacred, and holy. Even marriages between atheists, or between Muslims, or a hindi man and woman.

To us, such a thing is holy. A Christian is not to have carnal knowledge a married person (to anyone other to whom they are directly married to), it is very close to blasphemy.

Eg.
Steve is married to Sarah
And Jimmy is either a batchlor or married to Janet.

Jimmy is a Christian. But...
Jimmy looks at Sarah every day at work.

Eventually,
Jimmy has become lustful and desires to have Sarah.

Sarah is married. Therefore, she is off limits.
Every marriage is sacred, even hers.

If Jimmy was a nonbeliever, he could do whatever he liked. Marriage is just paperwork and cohabitation.

But if Jimmy asked a bible savvy pastor for advice... he would be counseled to repent, or change his mind/thoughts about Sarah.

Because every valid marriage is sacred and holy.


----------



## Steve (Feb 11, 2017)

Whoa.   Hold on.   I get what you're saying, but you're making some pretty tenuous presumptions.   

First, there are countless religions outside of Christianity in the world that hold marriage to be sacred.   

Second, there are many non-believers who consider marriage to be a sacred commitment.   Being a non-believer doesn't mean being amoral.   And even if a non believer is amoral, he/she still can't just do what he/she wants.   

Regarding the rest, yes, sure.  I don't think anyone disagrees that getting a wafer in a church is a religious act.   I think the key here is that performing a religious act doesn't make one religious.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I understand that point. However, a religious item (including the kamidana) doesn't automatically retain its religious aspect when someone uses it. The Buddha I have on my desk downstairs is a reminder of some philosophical concepts. I have a couple of angels for my Christmas tree because they are pretty. I celebrate Christmas as a cultural time. Religious practice is only religious while it maintains a religious context for the individuals involved. If I reference the Christian texts, there's no prohibition (as most Christians interpret it) against having pictures, statues, etc. If one worships those, however, they become idols. Otherwise, they remain art.



Thats true.  Crosses dont work on vampires if you dont believe in it.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 12, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> As a Christian my role is like a hostage negotiater trying to offer terms of peace, & to help avoid a person from going to God's courtroom of justice.



God's courtroom of justice needs a lot of work because sending all guilty prisoners to the most extreme punishment possible is not justice.



TSDTexan said:


> Perhaps the most important reason to become a Christian would be so that you escape the righteous judgment of God and spend eternity with him.



I wouldn't consider judging every person as being automatically guilty from birth of a trivial crime (stealing a piece of fruit) they could not have possibly taken any part in unless they completely surrender to the one who condemned them to be righteous.



TSDTexan said:


> He must judge those who rebel against him. If he did not, he would be approving evil.





TSDTexan said:


> Evil is doing such things as lying, stealing, etc.



Lying is not inherently evil. For example lying to Nazi soldiers looking for the Jewish family you are hiding in your basement by telling them you have not seen them is not evil at all.



TSDTexan said:


> If you have ever lied or stolen, then you are a liar and a thief.



That sounds like Ray Comfort's good person test, which is a test based on an ideal that no human being could possibly live up to.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 12, 2017)

In the system I train in, we have a specific protocol we follow to start and end class.

We don't have a Shinto (or any other religious shrine in the dojo (nor any other Seido dojo I've seen).  At our shinzen, we have our organization's kanji and a few things students and our CI have brought in over the years.  There's a picture of our founder (Tadashi Nakamura), and his son who he's officially named his successor.

We're usually in seiza (kneeling position) when we line up to start.  Followed by:

Shinzen ni rei (bow to shinzen)
Kaicho ni rei (bow to kaicho Nakamura)
Nidaime ni rei (how to his successor)
Makuso (eyes close, quick meditation)
Makuso (eyes open)
Then bowing to the instructor, and either dan ranks individually
Otegani rei (bowing together to everyone)

I could see how someone might take this as religious.  Thinking they're bowing to a shrine, idols, etc.

I look at it as intent.  I personally look at it as a sign of respect, no different than a handshake, military salute, etc.

Military people salute the flag, which is not religiously objectionable (that I know of); I look at bowing to shinzen (which has our kanji) as pretty much the same thing.

I don't know if military people salute a picture of the president (perhaps they do under specific terms/conditions?), but bowing to our founder's picture is no different in my mind.

I look at meditation as a way to quiet my mind and focus.  Close my eyes, empty my thoughts of the outside distractions, bring my breathing and tension down to a normal level.  I don't see how that goes against anything I've learned from my religion (orthodox Christian).

Even if every single person in the organization had a different interpretation and intent of our protocol, it has no bearing on mine.  I couldn't control what anyone feels, interprets, intends, etc. if I wanted to (which I don't anyway), so why get worked up about what they do?  All I can control is what I think and do.

If you interpret this stuff as religious and counter to what you're supposed to do, don't do it, simple as that.  If you don't interpret it as such, keep on truckin.'


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 12, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> Clause 1:
> "So, you would hold that all current religious practices were religious from their first moment of use"
> 
> My response:
> ...


Ah! Now I think we can reach a point of agreement. You're talking about the perception of the action. So, for instance, if I genuflect or make a motion that looks like a genuflection (for whatever reason), someone in the Catholic church would likely recognize it as a genuflection, and would see it as that gesture. The same would go for moving my hand in the 4-point "sign of the cross" that is commonly used in the Catholic church. And in this, I think we can agree that those actions will be recognized as religious by those for whom they are religious.



> If an athiest goes to a liberal Catholic Church, and decides (for giggles) to perform the act of receiving communion, he has performed a religious action in the view of the father/pastor, and the members of that church.
> 
> The atheist is able to be ignorant of the knowledge that the Catholic Faith states that he literally ate and drank the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, and still actually do the act.
> 
> It was really just wine or grape juice and unleavened bread. But by eating and drinking it he performed a religious action.


In that context, I don't think it's even arguable. The atheist may not be participating in the religion, but he is consciously partaking in the rituals of it. He doesn't become a momentary Catholic, but he is sharing the ritual in a religious context. Some would feel uncomfortable doing so, some would not. In some faiths, this may be seen as inappropriate by those who practice the religion (as in the case of participating in Communion at a Catholic mass).



> Now some religions require intentionality to be present, as well as a measure of informed consent to view the work/act/practice to be viable or valid.
> 
> Lets look at the sacrament of marriage.
> From the bible-believer christian worldview,
> ...


That's an accurate statement of that worldview. One alternative worldview, of course, is that marriage is a civil contract (requiring a civil license, and which can be performed by a civil servant). Many of us get married outside any religious institution. There are parts of the wedding ceremony that we may observe that have a religious origin (and may be viewed as religious by those who participate in a religion that uses them), but we won't see any religion in them, ourselves.

As for the requirement of intent, I don't think this is something a religion can oversee. If someone doesn't intend to practice a religion, they cannot accidentally do so. Going back to the first part of this post, let me create a small thought experiment to clarify my point. Two people: Sam and Greg. 

Sam was raised in a small, isolated community in a foreign land. In that community, centuries ago, raising your hand and offering your fist to someone was once a religious act. One of the gods they worshiped was the war god, "Fulna". Fulna granted strength to warriors, and was said to bless the bravest with the power to kill with one punch, and to the most selfless the ability to withstand any blow. A greeting among devout warriors was to punch each other (with moderate force) in the chest, each in turn. This was meant to show that each had been granted both powers. Over time, to shorten the ritual, this became a practice of a softer punch to the others' own fist. That belief system has long been abandoned (they all converted to another religion, perhaps Christianity), and the practice became a simple greeting.

Is Sam's fist bump still religious, even though they now (knowing the origin) see it as grounded in ancient mythology and superstition, rather than actually seeking the blessing of a god?

As for Greg, he grew up in the United States, and has only ever known the fist bump as a greeting. It never had religious significance in his culture. If he performs this greeting with Sam, is it religious? What about when not with Sam?

I can't see a reasonable argument for calling either man's fist bump "religious", though one of them certainly has religious origins. And if there were still adherents to the old religion in Sam's community, they would likely see it as religious, perhaps in both cases.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Thats true.  Crosses dont work on vampires if you dont believe in it.


The cross, or the vampire?


----------



## Steve (Feb 12, 2017)

I still have two questions I'd be interested in hearing opinions on.   

We, I think, all agree that a ritual is a ritual.   Whether you knowingly participate or not, if it's a Christian ritual or a Shinto ritual or whatever, If it's unique to that religion and you're doing it, there you go.

But, first question that was raised, which i don't think has been addressed.   Does performing that ritual make you religious?  I don't think so.  Being polite in class and going with the flow, regardless of how strange it may seem, will not necessarily mean anything more than that. Unless you believe in witchcraft or magic, in which case saying the words and going through the motions might cast a spell...  I guess.  

Second question,  it was suggested that without Shinto, a Japanese art is an empty shell.  Is that a common belief?  Is it possible to decouple the art and the religion, when the art comes from a culture where the religion manifests in everything?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 12, 2017)

Steve said:


> I still have two questions I'd be interested in hearing opinions on.
> 
> We, I think, all agree that a ritual is a ritual.   Whether you knowingly participate or not, if it's a Christian ritual or a Shinto ritual or whatever, If it's unique to that religion and you're doing it, there you go.
> 
> ...


I have difficulty seeing how an art could be so tightly tied to Shintoism that it couldn't be separated. As far as I know, there has never been a deep tie between NGA and Shintoism. We bow just once to start a class - instructor facing students, students facing the shrine area. We do refer to it as a shrine, and recognize the Shinto background to it, but in the US (the only expansion from the original dojo in Hokkaido) it has always been taught as a moment to recognize the contribution of the person represented there (some keep their senior instructor's photo there, some the person who brought it to the US, some few have a photo of the founder) and to each other. We only rarely bow other than start/end of class (when it's the next person's turn in a whole-class exercise, for instance).


----------



## Paul_D (Feb 12, 2017)

Steve said:


> Does performing that ritual make you religious?


I don't think so, bowing because that's the etiquette of the class doesn't mean I'm required to have an imaginary friend who lives in the sky.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 12, 2017)

Steve said:


> I still have two questions I'd be interested in hearing opinions on.
> 
> We, I think, all agree that a ritual is a ritual.   Whether you knowingly participate or not, if it's a Christian ritual or a Shinto ritual or whatever, If it's unique to that religion and you're doing it, there you go.
> 
> ...



It's all about intent.  Religious rituals are symbolic, not literal.  Think about it - the bread isn't truly Christ's body, the wine isn't truly his blood.  It's the practitioner's acceptance of the symbolism that makes it religious.  A non-Christian could eat/drink it purely out of respect for where he/she was and it not have any bearing on them.

Sounds like heresey, but I'm trying to flip the script on what I experienced - I've been to a synagogue once.  I was asked to wear a yamika, and did so out of respect.  That didn't make me Jewish, nor did it make me question my faith in the least bit.

Yes, wearing a yamika and taking communion aren't the same, but I'm trying here.  Communion only becomes communion if you accept it s such.  Bowing to someone or a picture only becomes worship if you intend it as such.  

Just my opinions.  I'm sure others will disagree.


----------



## Druid (Feb 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> It's all about intent.  Religious rituals are symbolic, not literal.  Think about it - the bread isn't truly Christ's body, the wine isn't truly his blood.  It's the practitioner's acceptance of the symbolism that makes it religious.  A non-Christian could eat/drink it purely out of respect for where he/she was and it not have any bearing on them.
> 
> Sounds like heresey, but I'm trying to flip the script on what I experienced - I've been to a synagogue once.  I was asked to wear a yamika, and did so out of respect.  That didn't make me Jewish, nor did it make me question my faith in the least bit.
> 
> ...



For Catholics the bread and wine are very much literally Jesus's Body and Blood and to partake in communion if your not a Catholic in a state of grace is seen as sacrilegious.  I was raised Catholic but I no longer identify as such and therefore would never take communion even when I do still attend Mass from time to time.  I also won't say the prayers during mass (I will stand up and kneel with the rest of the congregation) because it makes me feel like a hypocrite at best and/or that I'm mocking people who sincerely saying those prayers at worst.  Basically while I agree something is religious to you only if you believe it to be a religious act, that doesn't mean that people's who religious act you are borrowing won't still see you as either practicing their religion or being blasphemous towards it.  You wearing a yamika is actually sort of opposite of taking communion in a church you don't belong in. Jews believe that men should have their head covered when entering their houses of worship, by putting a yamika on you are saying I respect your beliefs even if I don't share them.

To be fair I don't know a lot about Shinto (I actually have a book on it in my to be read pile, it may have to move up a couple spots), so I'm unsure how someone who practices it would feel about aspects of their religion being used outside their religious context.  But bowing is something that seems to be ingrained in Japanese culture beyond religion.  My guess is that it may be closer to the yamika situation then the communion one.  Bowing towards picture even if you are not actually worshiping your ancestors would be preferable as simply a sign of respect to them, then not bowing.  Someone who knows more about Shinto would probably be able to answer better.  But my point in general is that while using a certain practice from a religion doesn't automatically have religious significance to you, we should remember it still that it still has religious significance to someone and we should think about how those people would feel about their practice being used outside the context of their religion.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 12, 2017)

Druid said:


> For Catholics the bread and wine are very much literally Jesus's Body and Blood and to partake in communion if your not a Catholic in a state of grace is seen as sacrilegious.  I was raised Catholic but I no longer identify as such and therefore would never take communion even when I do still attend Mass from time to time.  I also won't say the prayers during mass (I will stand up and kneel with the rest of the congregation) because it makes me feel like a hypocrite at best and/or that I'm mocking people who sincerely saying those prayers at worst.  Basically while I agree something is religious to you only if you believe it to be a religious act, that doesn't mean that people's who religious act you are borrowing won't still see you as either practicing their religion or being blasphemous towards it.  You wearing a yamika is actually sort of opposite of taking communion in a church you don't belong in. Jews believe that men should have their head covered when entering their houses of worship, by putting a yamika on you are saying I respect your beliefs even if I don't share them.
> 
> To be fair I don't know a lot about Shinto (I actually have a book on it in my to be read pile, it may have to move up a couple spots), so I'm unsure how someone who practices it would feel about aspects of their religion being used outside their religious context.  But bowing is something that seems to be ingrained in Japanese culture beyond religion.  My guess is that it may be closer to the yamika situation then the communion one.  Bowing towards picture even if you are not actually worshiping your ancestors would be preferable as simply a sign of respect to them, then not bowing.  Someone who knows more about Shinto would probably be able to answer better.  But my point in general is that while using a certain practice from a religion doesn't automatically have religious significance to you, we should remember it still that it still has religious significance to someone and we should think about how those people would feel about their practice being used outside the context of their religion.



I agree with what you're saying.  I was just trying to come up with something that equated to the yamika wearing.  The standing and kneeling are far better analogies.

As far as communion literally being his body and blood, we have to remember the definition of "literally" and not how people throw that word around incorrectly.  In order for it to literally be his body and blood, it would have to actually be his body and blood, meaning finding his body and getting gruesome.

It's symbolic.  As it was when he gave bread and wine to his disciples during the last supper.  No one bit his arm nor cut him and drank (at least no one I know of reported that). Just as it was then, it is now - symbolism.  

Without accepting the symbolism, it's just bread and water; accepting it makes it far more.  If a Shinto minister blessed bread and I ate it without buying into what he did, it wouldn't change anything within me.  It would probably be wrong of me to accept it, but that's not what I'm debating.

I'm no theologian.  I'm just respectfully stating my opinions, and respectfully considering others'.  Mine aren't any better nor worse than yours or anyone else's; they're just mine.


----------



## Druid (Feb 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I agree with what you're saying.  I was just trying to come up with something that equated to the yamika wearing.  The standing and kneeling are far better analogies.
> 
> As far as communion literally being his body and blood, we have to remember the definition of "literally" and not how people throw that word around incorrectly.  In order for it to literally be his body and blood, it would have to actually be his body and blood, meaning finding his body and getting gruesome.
> 
> ...



I used the word "literally" intentionally because unlike other Christian denominations Catholics believe that Priests have the power to transform the Bread and Wine into the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, while retaining their outward mundane characteristics of the bread and wine (they still taste like bread and wine).  It's called Transubstantiation in Catholic doctrine.  Its not a symbol for them, which is why it is very disrespectful to take communion if you aren't a Catholic in a state of grace.  You are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their god in no uncertain terms as far as they are concerned.

My point in general was that while a particular religious act my have no significance for us, we should be aware of what significance it has for the religion that practices it and be aware that some acts just shouldn't be done by nonbelievers, but there are other acts that may be done by nonbelievers without being disrespectful towards the religion (wearing the yamika).


----------



## Steve (Feb 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I agree with what you're saying.  I was just trying to come up with something that equated to the yamika wearing.  The standing and kneeling are far better analogies.
> 
> As far as communion literally being his body and blood, we have to remember the definition of "literally" and not how people throw that word around incorrectly.  In order for it to literally be his body and blood, it would have to actually be his body and blood, meaning finding his body and getting gruesome.
> 
> ...


Actually, I think that to a Catholic, the communion is literal.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Ah! Now I think we can reach a point of agreement. You're talking about the perception of the action. So, for instance, if I genuflect or make a motion that looks like a genuflection (for whatever reason), someone in the Catholic church would likely recognize it as a genuflection, and would see it as that gesture. The same would go for moving my hand in the 4-point "sign of the cross" that is commonly used in the Catholic church. And in this, I think we can agree that those actions will be recognized as religious by those for whom they are religious.
> 
> 
> In that context, I don't think it's even arguable. The atheist may not be participating in the religion, but he is consciously partaking in the rituals of it. He doesn't become a momentary Catholic, but he is sharing the ritual in a religious context. Some would feel uncomfortable doing so, some would not. In some faiths, this may be seen as inappropriate by those who practice the religion (as in the case of participating in Communion at a Catholic mass).
> ...




Yes, it both religious and secular in your experiment. The real objective truth is found in the reality if Fulna is a real god or not. If it was actually true, that Fulna exists, and grants those things, then the act of fistbumping, or the older more orthodox form would remain a religious action in all cases, as seen from Fulna's objective view

Even if Sam, never knew it.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 12, 2017)

Steve said:


> Actually, I think that to a Catholic, the communion is literal.



They do.

Truely in substance, dispite our sense perception to the contrary, it is Jesus Flesh and blood.

As a protestant reformation bible believer... not at all. It is symbolic and spiritually his flesh and blood


----------



## Steve (Feb 12, 2017)

Its a literal belief.  But that doesn't make it literal reality.  Theres an important difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I agree with what you're saying.  I was just trying to come up with something that equated to the yamika wearing.  The standing and kneeling are far better analogies.
> 
> As far as communion literally being his body and blood, we have to remember the definition of "literally" and not how people throw that word around incorrectly.  In order for it to literally be his body and blood, it would have to actually be his body and blood, meaning finding his body and getting gruesome.
> 
> ...


By Catholic doctrine, a transubstantiation occurs. The bread and wine literally (yes, literally) convert into the flesh and blood of the Christ. That doesn't change anything about the rest of your post - just clarifying that point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 12, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> Yes, it both religious and secular in your experiment. The real objective truth is found in the reality if Fulna is a real god or not. If it was actually true, that Fulna exists, and grants those things, then the act of fistbumping, or the older more orthodox form would remain a religious action in all cases, as seen from Fulna's objective view
> 
> Even if Sam, never knew it.


That's still from a given viewpoint. Ignoring whether my fake god is real or not, if the fist bumping (or the original chest-punching) actually generates a set of powers, that is magic, and does not change whether it is religious or not. If people didn't know where the power came from, and simply used the ritual to gain the power before battle, it would not be religious - it would be a military ritual.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 12, 2017)

Regarding communion, I guess I learn new things everyday.  No idea Catholics believed that.  I was raised Catholic on my mother's side, and Armenian Orthodox on my father's side.  I teach at a Catholic school too.  Now to find out what my Orthodox side believes.  I've somehow gravitated more towards them for reasons unbeknownst to me.  

Good thing I was never given a Catholic entrance exam at my job.  I respect the belief.  Doesn't mean I agree with it.  Then again, I interpret most things (religious and not) as intent/symbolic rather than literal.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 12, 2017)

JR,
Here is a rich resource on the issue, that shares the EO position on transub of the eucharist.


The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

The tl;dr version.
EO same as RCC wrt transub and the eucharist. Internal EO debate on exact time the event happens vs the RCC positon.


----------



## Druid (Feb 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Regarding communion, I guess I learn new things everyday.  No idea Catholics believed that.  I was raised Catholic on my mother's side, and Armenian Orthodox on my father's side.  I teach at a Catholic school too.  Now to find out what my Orthodox side believes.  I've somehow gravitated more towards them for reasons unbeknownst to me.
> 
> Good thing I was never given a Catholic entrance exam at my job.  I respect the belief.  Doesn't mean I agree with it.  Then again, I interpret most things (religious and not) as intent/symbolic rather than literal.



Orthodox churches also teach communion is the literal body and blood.  Catholics and Orthodox Christians can take communion at each other's churches if there is no church of their own faith available to them.  In practice communion is a little different in that in Orthodox Churches leavened bread is used (because Christ is risen) and it is mixed with the wine and put into the person's mouth with a spoon. 

The schism between the Roman Catholic Church and The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church (the technical name) was in 1054 and had less to with a difference in theology then a disagreement about the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and whether he should be regarded as superior to other bishops.  There are some theological differences (Orthodox churches don't teach that Purgatory exists) and practical differences (Orthodox Priests can marry) but generally Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church are much closer in their teachings then either is to Protestant Churches.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 12, 2017)

And only ordained priests can do the supposed act of transubstantiation.

Deacons, nuns or monks or ley persons cannot.
Even if they pronounce the liturgy word for word, they do not have the "Holy Orders of apostolic succession"


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 12, 2017)

Druid said:


> Orthodox churches also teach communion is the literal body and blood.  Catholics and Orthodox Christians can take communion at each other's churches if there is no church of their own faith available to them.  In practice communion is a little different in that in Orthodox Churches leavened bread is used (because Christ is risen) and it is mixed with the wine and put into the person's mouth with a spoon.
> 
> The schism between the Roman Catholic Church and The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church (the technical name) was in 1054 and had less to with a difference in theology then a disagreement about the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and whether he should be regarded as superior to other bishops.  There are some theological differences (Orthodox churches don't teach that Purgatory exists) and practical differences (Orthodox Priests can marry) but generally Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church are much closer in their teachings then either is to Protestant Churches.




Which is why the RCC Cannon of Law allows EO/ Eastern Rite believers to participate in the RCC Mass and vice versa.

As they are in "Full Communion" with each other.

Protestants on the other hand only share in the common sacrament of baptism. The RCC doesn't rebaptize protestants who submits to the authority of the Pope, and RCC, and become Roman Catholic.


----------



## Druid (Feb 12, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> Which is why the RCC Cannon of Law allows EO/ Eastern Rite believers to participate in the RCC Mass and vice versa.
> 
> As they are in "Full Communion" with each other.
> 
> Protestants on the other hand only share in the common sacrament of baptism. The RCC doesn't rebaptize protestants who submits to the authority of the Pope, and RCC, and become Roman Catholic.



Eastern Rite and Eastern Orthodox Churches aren't the same thing.  Eastern Rite Churches are in full communion with the RCC and recognize the Pope as superior to other Bishops.  Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in full communion with the RCC and don't recognize the Pope as the supreme leader of the Church.  Eastern Rite churches use eastern liturgies and some allow their priests to marry but they recognize the Pope as the supreme head of the Church and the Pope has full authority over them.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 13, 2017)

Druid said:


> For Catholics the bread and wine are very much literally Jesus's Body and Blood


I wonder if that is where the idea of the Gingerbread man comes from?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If you feel you can participate in the ritual without actually doing the worshiping, then you could. However, it would probably feel wrong to you. That's a personal judgment you'd have to make for yourself.
> 
> ...



That might be true.  But I would be uncomfortable participating in a religious ritual of any kind that appeared to show me as worshiping another deity than the God I believe in.

Along with that is the problem of being able to effectively witness to others about my beliefs and show them any worthwhile reason to seek salvation through the grace given by God.

If I am constantly showing myself willfully not living up to any of the standards of my religion, how can I encourage a non-believer that my religion is better than another?

Most Christians (but not all) agree that the Bible teaches once saved, always saved.  Satan then must know that as well; that he cannot have our soul, no matter how much we backslide.  But if he can convince me to act as above, he can damage my testimony to non-believers.

Therefore, I believe I must as little as possible, show anything that could be misinterpreted by non-believers.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 13, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> God's courtroom of justice needs a lot of work because sending all guilty prisoners to the most extreme punishment possible is not justice.
> 
> *In my belief, since God created the universe and all in it, he gets to make the rules.  It may seem to us only two states, right or wrong, with only two sentences, is unacceptable.  We want something in between, some kind of second chance or plea deal.  And we do have that, but again, not on our terms.  We have the free will to chose the salvation paid for by Jesus' blood.  If we do not, then we get the extreme punishment.*
> 
> ...



I am not familiar enough with Ray Comfort to know if I would agree with any of his theology or not.  But the belief that no person can be considered good, in that all of us are sinners, is indeed Bible.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 13, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I am not familiar enough with Ray Comfort to know if I would agree with any of his theology or not.  But the belief that no person can be considered good, in that all of us are sinners, is indeed Bible.




Ray Comfort uses the law or specifically the ten commandments as a pass/fail test.

This is something that Jesus himself did in his ministry, as well as Paul.

The law closes the mouth of the hearer, and reveals his/her state before God.

Ray then puts his person on the spot with a question.

Usually along the lines of:
 "On the day of judgement, given that you admit you have broken (cites the admissions office the interviewee) these laws.  How is God going to find you, innocent or guilty?"

If they answer honestly, and don't reject the existence of God out of hand, but follow along... they say: "Guilty"

He immediately follows up with "and where will he send you, Heaven or Hell?"

They usually equivacate, or hem and haw, but admit God will send them to Hell. But will usually say they don't believe there is a he'll or God.

Ray then presents the Gospel, and God's plan of salvation. How if they will repent and believe in Christ, God will offer mercy and forgive their sins.

And take them to heaven when they die.


There are a lot of his youtube videos showing Ray Comfort doing street evangelization (sp).

I bought a copy of his book "way of the master" and went page by page and searched the scriptures for a fault.

My determination is that he is biblically sound in doctrine.

During his interviews he goes through a few of the Ten commandments. 
When he gets to
"Do not bear false witness, against your neighbor", 
he supplements it with additional information stating that according to the Revelation, all liars will have their part in the lake of fire"

Which is in fact found in the passage, he doesn't have to include all the other types of people who will join the liars.

It is a fair exegetical quote.


*Revelation 21:8King James Version (KJV)*
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

A lot of people hate God, because they think He is unfair, or unjust.

Pretty close to slander, I think.

If we accept that Christ is bodily raised ffrom the dead as an absolute fact, and that Jesus taught that man must live by every word that comes from the mouth of God (as recorded in the scriptures)

Then the many times, where God says He cannot lie, and that He is Just. And that He is merciful... need to be accepted as objectively truth by His revelation.

Humans get upset with the level of punishment exercised by God's Justice.

But they don't take into account that a criminal offense against an absolute and infinite Monarch, deserves an absolute punishment.

We humans practice enhanced punishment for the same offense depending on who the crime was perpetrated against.

I offer the tale of two bag-ladies as an example.

Lets suppose a thug in London assaults and batters a homeless bag lady, and is arrested for it

Do you think his punishment would be the same if the same man assaulted the Queen of England, outside of store while her bodyguards were dismissed on a shopping excursion?

We know he would face severe punishment in the latter case. In centuries past, he would have been killed, perhaps even tortured a bit.

It is the height of hubris, for a sinful criminal, who is but a creature to accuse the Maker of injustice.

He is the Creator, therefore He has the right to make the rules. And as the injured party, the right to select whom He offers forgiveness and mercy too.

The amazing thing is that He forgives in the first place.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 13, 2017)

As you may know, one method of starting a conversation towards leading a non-believer to Christ is to ask if they were to die right that moment, do they know if they would go to heaven or not.  In my experience, if I ask that and the person pauses, then says they would like to think so, I will probably find out they are Catholic.  Apparently, the Catholic church teaches it is sin to think you can know before you die if you are going to heaven or not.

Others, not having committed to any faith, will still say they will probably go to hell, some almost flaunting it so it doesn't sound so bad.  Some preachers used to say to get a person saved, you first have to get him lost.  That is, you have to ensure the person believes he will go to hell, then you can lead him to the path of salvation, as he will then be more receptive to the idea.

When I am evangelizing, I usually ask if they know what will happen to them if they die, or if they think they will go to heaven or hell.  It is interesting how many, as you mentioned above, will admit to a belief of going to hell, but not want to believe in God.  I don't know how you do it, but I usually take them through the Romans Road.  It seem effective.  I also like to give out the Chick track "This Was Your Life."  It also seems to get a lot of track(tion).


----------



## Steve (Feb 13, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> As you may know, one method of starting a conversation towards leading a non-believer to Christ is to ask if they were to die right that moment, do they know if they would go to heaven or not.


That's a funny question.  The obvious answer for a non-believer would be, "Of course not, because heaven doesn't exist." 

But, this thread seems to be drifting into the area of faith, Christianity and strategies for converting non-Christians, which I don't think is remotely relevant to how a religion intersects with martial arts.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 13, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> As you may know, one method of starting a conversation towards leading a non-believer to Christ is to ask if they were to die right that moment, do they know if they would go to heaven or not.  In my experience, if I ask that and the person pauses, then says they would like to think so, I will probably find out they are Catholic.  Apparently, the Catholic church teaches it is sin to think you can know before you die if you are going to heaven or not.
> 
> Others, not having committed to any faith, will still say they will probably go to hell, some almost flaunting it so it doesn't sound so bad.  Some preachers used to say to get a person saved, you first have to get him lost.  That is, you have to ensure the person believes he will go to hell, then you can lead him to the path of salvation, as he will then be more receptive to the idea.
> 
> When I am evangelizing, I usually ask if they know what will happen to them if they die, or if they think they will go to heaven or hell.  It is interesting how many, as you mentioned above, will admit to a belief of going to hell, but not want to believe in God.  I don't know how you do it, but I usually take them through the Romans Road.  It seem effective.  I also like to give out the Chick track "This Was Your Life."  It also seems to get a lot of track(tion).



Been down the road, many many times.
And I have used the same tract. You posted this post, before I finished the edit. I wrote more that you probably missed.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> That's a funny question.  The obvious answer for a non-believer would be, "Of course not, because heaven doesn't exist."
> 
> But, this thread seems to be drifting into the area of faith, Christianity and strategies for converting non-Christians, which I don't think is remotely relevant to how a religion intersects with martial arts.




Good eye. But the real question is do you want to join in the United Martial Artist for Christ?


----------



## O'Malley (Feb 13, 2017)

Tames D said:


> Does anyone here have experience with this organization? If so, will you share? Thank you.
> Karate, Martial Arts, Christian Karate - Christian Martial Arts - For Youth and Families



I would not join such an organization. I think that religion is a private, intimate matter and should stay so (I share my faith openly with those who are interested but I do not impose it on others nor do I see the need to "show it off" constantly). 

I am both a Christian (Roman Catholic) and a martial artist and I see no need to make my faith pervade my training, and the Muslim guys at my dojo practice in the same manner. When we train, we are just aikidoka.

The bowing thing, albeit being a religious ritual, does not mean giving up on my faith. O'Sensei himself used to say that you did not need to share his beliefs to practice aikido. Bowing has more to do with _respecting _the art (_sensu lato_, thus including the people who practice it, the cultural and religious components, etc.).

That said, to be fair, O'Sensei's philosophy of working for peace and loving and respecting others is pretty much in line with the gist of Jesus's message. Ironically, it might even make him a better Christian than a guy who, although he does Christian Kenpo and goes to church every Sunday, is a complete jerk to others in his daily life.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 13, 2017)

O'Malley said:


> ...
> 
> *The bowing thing, albeit being a religious ritual, does not mean giving up on my faith.* O'Sensei himself used to say that you did not need to share his beliefs to practice aikido. Bowing has more to do with _respecting _the art (_sensu lato_, thus including the people who practice it, the cultural and religious components, etc.).
> 
> That said, to be fair, O'Sensei's philosophy of working for peace and loving and respecting others is pretty much in line with the gist of Jesus's message. Ironically, it might even make him a better Christian than a guy who, although he does Christian Kenpo and goes to church every Sunday, is a complete jerk to others in his daily life.



Bolded:  Well, that has been a big point of contention in this thread.  Some agree with you, some don't.  Some think it may or may not be, depending on the person and/or the art/dojo.  I don't believe it needs to be, unless the art/dojo requires the bow be a religious gesture.  Then the student, especially if his religion forbids that, has a decision to make.

Underlined:  So "O'Sensei" was a Christian? 

I don't recall if anyone from Christian Kenpo was identified as a Christian hypocrite or complete jerk.  But I suspect that part of the idea would be to allow a person to keep coming to give an opportunity to learn better ways to act in general, and to be exposed to Christianity and possibly lead to salvation.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> A lot of people hate God, because they think He is unfair, or unjust.
> 
> Pretty close to slander, I think.



There is that babies with cancer issue.  And a god who can fix that and chooses not to. 

The argument is that there is an all powerful god and at the same time an all moral one. 

And you basically can't have both.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> That's a funny question.  The obvious answer for a non-believer would be, "Of course not, because heaven doesn't exist."
> 
> But, this thread seems to be drifting into the area of faith, Christianity and strategies for converting non-Christians, which I don't think is remotely relevant to how a religion intersects with martial arts.



Some beliefs of Christianity is that they have to evangelise. In Australia that concept is pretty foreign.

Quick ufc story.

So some friends of mine were out to dinner and spotted a famous Christian ufc fighter. They noticed people would approach him asking for photos or autographs and would get rebuffed.

Now in walks a famous Christian footballer. And suddenly the rules change.

The ufc fighter was like "Hey man do you love jesus?  I love jesus as well.  Come and sit with us"

See in my mind that is religion done wrong.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> That's a funny question.  The obvious answer for a non-believer would be, "Of course not, because heaven doesn't exist."
> 
> But, this thread seems to be drifting into the area of faith, Christianity and strategies for converting non-Christians, which I don't think is remotely relevant to how a religion intersects with martial arts.



As I said, you would be surprised at the number of people who profess not to believe in any religion, still acknowledge heaven or hell.

Certainly there has been some drift, most recently due to comments by and in response to, Mr. Chris Parker.  He has made his usual well segmented replies generally picking apart other's posts.  I sometimes find them informative, sometimes humorous, sometimes I wonder what it was all about.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There is that babies with cancer issue.  And a god who can fix that and chooses not to.
> 
> The argument is that there is an all powerful god and at the same time an all moral one.
> 
> And you basically can't have both.



That doesn't work out for you.  Whose definition of morality requires God to cure all ills or any other bad things in the world?  If it isn't God's why do you say you can't have both?


----------



## O'Malley (Feb 13, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Bolded:  Well, that has been a big point of contention in this thread.  Some agree with you, some don't.  Some think it may or may not be, depending on the person and/or the art/dojo.  I don't believe it needs to be, unless the art/dojo requires the bow be a religious gesture.  Then the student, especially if his religion forbids that, has a decision to make.



Of course I can just talk about my personal way of living my faith.



> Underlined:  So "O'Sensei" was a Christian?



Not in the technical sense, but neither was Jesus.

My point was that in his philosophy (Omoto-kyô sect) he followed principles that are in line with what Jesus taught his disciples. Actually, any human being who is caring and kind to others is following those same principles and even if they choose a different "way" I believe that they are heading to the same goal as I as a Christian. I consider them brothers, even though I can disagree with them about the dogma. The Christ himself was not that big about labels so why should I?



> I don't recall if anyone from Christian Kenpo was identified as a Christian hypocrite or complete jerk.  But I suspect that part of the idea would be to allow a person to keep coming to give an opportunity to learn better ways to act in general, and to be exposed to Christianity and possibly lead to salvation.



I was not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, nor at Christian Kenpo, I was just pointing out the fact that labeling yourself as Christian or taking part to activities that are labeled as Christian does not magically make you a better person. You have to follow the principles.

There are people who go to church every Sunday, follow the form and the dogma to the letter and even preach about Christianity but who are jerks to others in their daily lives. On the other hand, there are Muslims, Jews, atheists or Buddhists that live their lives in a loving and caring way, which is in line with Christian principles. And I firmly believe that, in order to think that the former follow the Word of God better than the latter just because of dogma, one must not think that highly of God. Jesus himself often admonished the Zealots and Pharisians for prioritizing the form over what really matters: the love of neighbour.




drop bear said:


> Some beliefs of Christianity is that they have to evangelise. In Australia that concept is pretty foreign.
> 
> Quick ufc story.
> 
> ...



Here is kind of an illustration of my point above.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> That doesn't work out for you.  Whose definition of morality requires God to cure all ills or any other bad things in the world?  If it isn't God's why do you say you can't have both?



Morality as defined as If you could cure a baby with cancer. Is it moral to refuse to do so?

If you could create any system you want. Is it moral to create one where a baby has cancer?

And of course the bible does have an opinion on helping people.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2017)

O'Malley said:


> Of course I can just talk about my personal way of living my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The issue becomes if you apply morality without empathy.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There is that babies with cancer issue.  And a god who can fix that and chooses not to.
> 
> The argument is that there is an all powerful god and at the same time an all moral one.
> 
> And you basically can't have both.




You fail to grasp the whole story on why an all powerful God allows suffering and misery to exist.

And it really is just a very old objection offered by a Greek Philosopher.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

My answer to Epicurus, and you Dropbear is:

Who are you to judge God?
Can you give life, and give it back again after death?
Can you make a universe?

If so, do it and worry not about how He runs his.

If you cannot create a universe, then you are I'll prepared to critique Him.

Much like a mother-in-law who has no license, nor has ever driven, offering to tell me how to drive my car.

God is able, and selectively willing to heal and baby with cancer.

But He is not malevolent.

Or alternatively, at the Promised resurrection day, He give a brand new life to all children who have died with bodies that cannot become I'll or diseased.

Time will reveal, that He was Just, even in the allowing of children to become I'll.

I will say again, it takes a lot of hubris to judge God, and call Him unjust.

If you had all knowledge, perhaps you would be able to objectively judge Him, but we don't.

We only have a superficial understanding to make a subjective charge against Him, and to do so is premature.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 14, 2017)

Folks, 
This is drifting away from the role of religion in martial arts and getting kind of close to evangelizing and proselytizing.   Maybe we can work our way closer to the target? 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Folks,
> This is drifting away from the role of religion in martial arts and getting kind of close to evangelizing and proselytizing.   Maybe we can work our way closer to the target?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



Getting back to the point noted above I think the point is this.  It depends of whether one is pedantic or not.  Martial Arts, ultimately are about physics.  Also, as much as some people may say this is wrong, in our increasingly secular society, how many people know the details of origins of the rituals that surround the martial arts.  As an example many types of Karate studied in the US are Okinawan and not Japanese in origin yet have bowing.  Is that Shinto?  Is it Buddhist or Taoist?  Is it the animistic religions of Okinawa or is it just respect?

I really think to, an extent, the argument is one that is so lost in perspective, how deep into history one wants to delve (which is likely determined, at least in part, by a personal bias) that it is basically an argument doomed to get lost in the weeds.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 14, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Morality as defined as If you could cure a baby with cancer. Is it moral to refuse to do so?
> 
> If you could create any system you want. Is it moral to create one where a baby has cancer?
> 
> And of course the bible does have an opinion on helping people.



Can I correctly say if I can help a person save their soul, is it moral for me to refuse to do so?  Most people here seem to think I should not.

But you are skirting around a much bigger question.  Why does God allow us to suffer and die from disease?  Why does God permit some to be so poor they have problems getting enough to eat?  Why can't we get anything here on earth we want?  My answer - ready for it? - I don't know for sure.

I am dismayed by televangelists who preach that the Bible says basically, all you have to do is pray for something you want, and God will give it to you.  Oh, by the way, give some of it to the televangelist while you are at it.  I believe that creates false expectations, which when they aren't fulfilled, causes people to lose faith.

But what I think I have observed from reading the Bible is this:  I don't know why, but it seems obvious that the devil has been given some power here on earth.  He is allowed to tempt us.  And he even had the power to tempt Jesus.  He can inflict pain and suffering.  God can restrain the devil any time he chooses to do so.  He does not restrain the devil on a constant basis.  There will be a time when the devil is completely restrained, and will be locked away in the lake of fire.  God answers prayer, but sometimes his answer is no (Paul asked for cure from a 'thorn in his side' but God answered that God's grace was sufficient for him).  He will always choose a time and place of His choosing to answer prayer.  We ourselves are often the cause of prayer not being answered because we wrongly ask.

All that said, if God created a perfect place for man to be, there might never have been any problems, but for the intervention of the devil.


----------



## Steve (Feb 14, 2017)

TSDTexan said:


> Good eye. But the real question is do you want to join in the United Martial Artist for Christ?


There are questions that Chris raised, that are interesting (I think). 

Let's say I am a student at this school.  If I were to join the United Martial Artist for Christ school, would I be participating in Christian rituals?

If yes, would participating in these rituals make me a Christian?

Would choosing not to participate in Christian aspects of this art mean that I am training in a shell of an art?

And the larger, implied questions.  Is there a necessary, spiritual element to training in a martial art?  And if so, must this spiritual component be Shinto if the art originated in Japan, or can it be replaced by, say a Christian spiritual element like at the United Martial Artists for Christ?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 14, 2017)

jks9199 said:


> Folks,
> This is drifting away from the role of religion in martial arts and getting kind of close to evangelizing and proselytizing.   Maybe we can work our way closer to the target?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



Point taken.  I would say that some MA seem to have religious facets.  If that is what that MA wants, so be it.

I would also say that some MA do not, including the eastern MA.  I don't agree that the bow is a guaranteed religious facet of a MA.  It may be but isn't an irrevocable fact.  The bow has been around for so long, I don't think its existence in MA makes it religious, in and of itself.

Just my belief.  No one is required to agree or disagree.


----------



## John Brewer (Feb 14, 2017)

Frankly the idea that these thirteen pages of posts has been anything about the original message is laughable. The original post was a question about a specific organization.



jks9199 said:


> Folks,
> This is drifting away from the role of religion in martial arts and getting kind of close to evangelizing and proselytizing.   Maybe we can work our way closer to the target?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Paul_D (Feb 14, 2017)

John Brewer said:


> Frankly the idea that these thirteen pages of posts has been anything about the original message is laughable. The original post was a question about a specific organization.


I doubt there are many threads on this or any other forum that stayed on topic from start to finish.


----------



## Steve (Feb 14, 2017)

Yeah, I think thread drift is an interesting and natural progression of a discussion.  What I commented on earlier, and possibly what JKS9199 referred to, was a shift from discussing the intersection of martial arts and religion, to a thread discussing the theology of Christianity, strategies for converting non-believers, and active proselytizing.

I like thread drift, but I think that there are more appropriate places for spreading the word.


----------



## TSDTexan (Feb 14, 2017)

I will be opening a topic over in the tavern for martial talk folks who would like to keep the dialog going, that way this thread doesn't get further thread jacked.

/bow


----------



## Tames D (Feb 15, 2017)

O'Malley said:


> That said, to be fair, O'Sensei's philosophy of working for peace and loving and respecting others is pretty much in line with the gist of Jesus's message. Ironically, it might even make him a better Christian than a guy who, although he does Christian Kenpo and goes to church every Sunday, is a complete jerk to others in his daily life.


Bob Mitchell heads up the UMAC organization, and my research has shown me that he is a practitioner of Christian Kenpo, but quite the opposite of a complete jerk. I've been told by highly respected men like Bob White and Raul Ries that Mr. Mitchell is the real deal in terms of martial arts and Christianity. He's a good man.


----------



## O'Malley (Feb 15, 2017)

Ok I understand how my post would have looked like I was dissing on Mr Mitchell. I had no intention to do so as I do not know the man. Of course he might be a good fella!

I wanted to point out the fact that you do not need your martial art and your religion to intertwine like this and that joining such an organization  (in the abstract sense, I can not speak about UMAC in particular) does not necessarily mean that you will become a better Christian that you would have been had you kept martial arts and religion separate.

However, if you are looking for this kind of thing by all means go for it! It is just that "Christian karate " sounds weird to me, like vegan banjo. I just do not see the point of it. Might be a cultural thing though, I've searched for "Christian martial arts" in French and I've found nothing.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2017)

O'Malley said:


> Ok I understand how my post would have looked like I was dissing on Mr Mitchell. I had no intention to do so as I do not know the man. Of course he might be a good fella!
> 
> I wanted to point out the fact that you do not need your martial art and your religion to intertwine like this and that joining such an organization  (in the abstract sense, I can not speak about UMAC in particular) does not necessarily mean that you will become a better Christian that you would have been had you kept martial arts and religion separate.
> 
> However, if you are looking for this kind of thing by all means go for it! It is just that "Christian karate " sounds weird to me, like vegan banjo. I just do not see the point of it. Might be a cultural thing though, I've searched for "Christian martial arts" in French and I've found nothing.



Another weird Christian thing is it is not just doing decent stuff. There is a major component in that you have to accept jesus.

So if you get two people and one is a decent guy by christian standards and the other is a bit of a duche. If the duche accepts jesus then he goes to heaven and it s quite simply tough bananas for the other bloke.

So in that vein they may need to be cristian when they martial art.


----------



## John Brewer (Feb 15, 2017)

As far as false idols I know my heart and what my intentions are. Not sure how the sabath would come into play.



drop bear said:


> Fair enough. How do you console that with Christianity?
> 
> Say if someone suggests it is the worship of a false idol.  Or work on a sabbith or something.


----------



## John Brewer (Feb 15, 2017)

You are welcome to your opinion but as noted in my reply to the first post UMAFC is an outreach not a karate program. Why is it a problem if I want my martial arts to encompass my relationship with God? 



O'Malley said:


> Ok I understand how my post would have looked like I was dissing on Mr Mitchell. I had no intention to do so as I do not know the man. Of course he might be a good fella!
> 
> I wanted to point out the fact that you do not need your martial art and your religion to intertwine like this and that joining such an organization  (in the abstract sense, I can not speak about UMAC in particular) does not necessarily mean that you will become a better Christian that you would have been had you kept martial arts and religion separate.
> 
> However, if you are looking for this kind of thing by all means go for it! It is just that "Christian karate " sounds weird to me, like vegan banjo. I just do not see the point of it. Might be a cultural thing though, I've searched for "Christian martial arts" in French and I've found nothing.


----------



## O'Malley (Feb 15, 2017)

It is not, per se.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 15, 2017)

Oh boy... 

Look, there's a lot to clarify and cover, so this'll take a fair bit... but I'll try to keep each response short... well, as short as I can, anyway. Anyone who sees their name might want to just skip through to those areas... as there'll be a lot of doubling up here.

Just as a basic preface, though... you're all thinking in terms of Western religion (well, maybe not Xue...), which means that you're looking at things with a rather inaccurate and incomplete grasp of the concepts... so I heartily recommend to keep that in mind.



gpseymour said:


> Okay, you're ignoring the points I'm making. I'll just disagree with you and leave it at that.



Look, you can disagree all you want... but I haven't been discussing preferences, opinions, theories, or anything else... I've simply reported facts. Disagree if you want, but the reality is that I've simply told you what the reality is. What you do with that information is up to you. I'm not ignoring your points, your points are ignoring the reality.



Steve said:


> Chris, if you were simply saying that this particular ritual is a Shinto ritual and if you are doing it, you are doing a Shinto ritual, there would be a lot less reaction to your posts.  This is pretty straightforward:  _"The bowing ceremony is a Shinto ritual. That's it. It doesn't matter if you call it something else, if you acknowledge it or not, or anything else... it's still a Shinto ritual." _ When I went to a Lutheran Church for service, there is no question that I'm participating in Lutheran rituals.



Which is, pretty much, exactly what I'm saying.



Steve said:


> When you extend that pretty straightforward point further, suggesting that, by removing the Shinto worship from the training, you are studying a shell of a system, it suggests you are making a larger point.  You say things like, _"[if] you genuinely remove all of the religious influences from the practice of Japanese martial arts, you end up with a shell of the actual system... as it permeates and influences far more of the system than most realize." _



And here is where the viewing through a Western religious lens comes into it... I have never, at any point, said anything about "worship". I have also never suggested that, by engaging in the ritual, or by attending a class, you are now a fully indoctrinated Shinto-ist... what I have said is that rituals themselves are a Shinto ritual (as well as quite a lot of other aspects being taken from Japanese religious concepts), and that, if your religion forbids you from participating in the rituals of other religions, you have to come to some understanding of that. You can ignore the religious aspects, and make peace with it that way... you can make it mean something else in your mind... you can refuse to participate (which can mean you are not part of that school/art)... or whatever. But that's up to the individual.

With the comment on the religious influences, honestly, it's so ingrained in (particularly Japanese classical arts) so many aspects of the art that, yes, if you were to remove all religious aspects from a Japanese martial art, you'd have very little left... you wouldn't have your dojo to train in, for one thing... you wouldn't have the architecture of it either... you wouldn't have a number of aspects of the clothing... you'd be missing a lot of the terminology... and many of the techniques would be removed as well.

Yep, you'd be missing the actual martial art techniques in many cases. No, I'm not kidding. Welcome to Japanese martial arts.

I'll give an example... I was teaching a Hanbo (three foot staff) technique last night... it's a fairly simple technique against a low strike to the body (which could also be a knife thrust, by the way), and the response is to strike down on top of the hand/wrist, then pull the staff back horizontally, in order to strike horizontally around to the side/back of the opponent. Okay, fairly simple... but, if it's a punch, is the arm still there for your strike down? And why a horizontal strike, when a thrust is right there, and easier to do? Well, it comes down to esoteric Shinto-ism.

The technique is from a branch of the Kukishin Ryu... who are famous for having, not just martial arts, but a family transmitted form of Shinto, called Nakatomi Shinto (not uncommon in Japanese arts). Within Shinto, there are concepts of protective spells and so forth, the best known being Kuji Kiri (nine syllable cutting), with the next level being Juji Kiri (ten syllable cutting)... with the "tenth syllable/character" being the spell being locked in in the first place. As a result, the striking method of the weapon is a vertical strike down, followed by a horizontal strike across... in Japanese, the character for "ten" (Ju - 十) is a cross... a vertical and horizontal line intersecting... which means that the technique is, not only a powerful way to strike, but a way of invoking a protective spell for your own well being when engaging in combat.

And, just in case you think this is an isolated case, the first kata in many sword systems, particularly Iai methods, follow the same idea... a horizontal cut, then a vertical one (sometimes multiples) with the same concept... the Iai methods of a number of arts (such as Katori Shinto Ryu) can also be used as a ritual for things like exorcism (Japanese, not Western), and so on. The footwork patterns of the kata of karate, TKD, and Chinese forms (such as Ba-gua) are also based in the same ideas... such as the trigrams used in both Korean and Chinese systems, linked with the I-ching (itself highly religious in it's base)... the use of particular fists has a similar idea behind it... 

So, you understand, when I say that much of the art is removed once you remove all religious influence and aspects from these systems, and you're losing most of the art... leaving you with a shell... 



Steve said:


> I think there's room to distinguish between tradition and religion, largely to do with intent.  There are karate dojos all over the USA and Europe that have removed Shinto worship entirely from their schools, even if they honor the traditional trappings of the religion.



In most cases, they aren't aware of what they would need to remove... they've taken out some of the overt symbolic aspects, but actually kept the parts that make it a Shinto influence/ritual... and simply deny what it is (either through lack of knowledge, or through arrogance that they even know what it is in the first place...). And I'm not making any kind of case for anything being "traditional"... I'm talking about the actual practice today. Now. Whether it's recognised or not.



gpseymour said:


> The ritual is religious. The practice of it need not be.



That is a decision the individual needs to make... but nothing changes the fact that the ritual is a religious act and action. And again, if your religion forbids partaking in the practice of other religious rituals/behaviours, it's useful to be aware of it when you walk in.



oftheherd1 said:


> What was the bow called before the Japanese established Shintoism as their animistic 'national' religion?



I think you're getting it all backwards, there... a bow is used within Shinto, a bow is not Shinto... as far as names, different bows have different names, but really, that's fairly different... 



Steve said:


> That's an interesting question and I think I get what you mean.  It's muddy, though, because you're describing actions which, independent of any religious connotation, would likely be reprehensible to most people.  In other words, it's hard to get to the root of your question because the objection to the actions involved are much more universal than culture or religion.



Yep, agreed. 



Steve said:


> There are a couple of interesting questions here, though.  The first is, if something is religious to one person, does that mean it is inherently religious?  If I worship by going to a church every sunday, does that mean everyone who goes to church is necessarily religious?  The answer could be yes, but as a practical matter, that's not always true.  I don't think anyone would argue that whether you are religious or not, going to church is a religious act. But going to church is inherently a manifestation of Christian worship.  It's like the bowing ritual Chris describes.



Regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs, are you going to suggest that a Church is not a religious building except for Christians? A religious building is a religious building... maybe not your personal one, but it still is. You'd be hard pressed to not describe a synagogue, a mosque, a Buddhist Temple, a Shinto shrine, a Catholic Church, an abbey, a cathedral, a chapel as not being religious buildings, no matter what religion you particularly subscribe to (or not).

From there, it becomes a question of what the act of going to that religious building is for the individual... and that comes down to the internal belief system of the individual... but, nothing that the individual believes, thinks, feels, or understands changes the fact that the building is a religious structure, the activities that take place in that building are religious, and so on. In other words, you don't go to Church for a service, and expect it to be completely secular.



Steve said:


> _EDIT:  To finish the thought, there are other actions that are religious to some and not to others.  In other words, some religious acts are not unique to a religion or even inherently religious.  When I bow my head I'm not praying, but others are and for them, it is a religious act. _



If you're not praying, you're not praying... so... okay... on the other hand, if you are taking part in communion, regardless of your thoughts, you are taking part in communion... a religious act is a religious act. Not praying is not partaking in it... not making it non-religious for you.



Steve said:


> Is training in Karate or Aikido or Jujutsu a manifestation of Shinto worship?  It appears that Chris is suggesting that Shintoism infuses everything, so that training Karate or Aikido or what have you, is inherently religious.  Yes, I get that the bowing ritual is a Shinto ritual.  No one disputes that.  but the larger question is, can you learn Aikido and NOT practice Shintoism?  Is it possible to decouple the practice of a Japanese martial art and the worship of a Japanese religion?  Or does it become, as Chris suggests, an empty shell?



Again, I've never said anything about worship... you're thinking too "Western"... but yeah, many aspects of these arts are manifestations of Shinto (and Buddhist) concepts, ideas, teachings, and so on. 



oftheherd1 said:


> Yes, there is much to think on, and many paths no doubt.  But as to your first paragraph, we don't know how big the "Golden Calf" was, but read Exodus chapter 32.
> 
> As to the second paragraph, I don't know if going to church is always a religious act.  I think I can agree that for some it is intended to appear to be a religious act.  I do think you can learn a martial art and not make bowing a religious act.  I also think that the bowing in some martial arts is not a religious act.  But being a Christian and going to church, or seeking to evaluate Christianity, is not like the bowing Chris Parker describes.



Going to the dojo is like going to Church... quite literally. It's a Buddhist word, after all... a Buddhist concept... a Buddhist location...

As to much of this, you're conflating your own beliefs and desires with what actually is. That's fine... it's common, really... but it doesn't change the reality of it all.



oftheherd1 said:


> I would guess if you do it as Chris Parker apparently does, it might be.  I doubt it would be a requirement other than Aikido.  But don't take my word for it.  I only know what I have seen in programs about Aikido, and I haven't seen that in Karate or Jujutsu, but I guess it could be there as well.



It has nothing to do with the way I "apparently (do it)", it has to do with what it actually is...



TSDTexan said:


> A good little excerpt about the Kamiza, that Chris mentioned.
> 
> In most cases, that I have seen...
> The religious practice was lost in the translation to western culture, with western religious beliefs. References to Buddhism/shintoism were politely swept under the rug.
> ...



To deal with the PDF excerpt first... honestly, I don't agree with it. It's largely an apologetic piece working to deny the reality of the situation in order to make engaging in the actions more palatable for Westerners who were concerned about such issues.

That said, yeah, much of the religious aspects were not made clear at the least to Westerners training in the early days... whether that's it being "swept under the rug", or just not felt like it was required to be explained, as the influence was pretty obvious to all who grew up in the culture, is another question.



Xue Sheng said:


> I have no horse in this race but I believe the point Chris is trying to make is he is not just talking about a bow, he is talking about a bow to a Kamiza which is the location of a small Shinto shrine called a kamidana, which is a miniature household altars provided to enshrine a Shinto kami.
> 
> I'm a CMA guy so it does not much matter to me, but that is how I have been reading this as it applies to Japanese Martial Arts who bow to a Kamiza



Yep, precisely. Although, I will say that I have been focusing on that for two reasons... one, it was the example given early in the thread of an example of potential religious action within the class, and two, it's a rather overt example, whereas much of the remainder is highly embedded, to the point that it's not noticed by large numbers of practitioners (such as my techniques examples earlier).



TSDTexan said:


> The Intent of an adherent or follower of a system of beliefs does not cause the ritual to be religious.



The rituals structure and symbolism, as well as various esoteria associated, are what makes them religious. Not the follower themselves. It's an important distinction to keep in mind.



TSDTexan said:


> The same is true for a non-follower performing the identical action in  the same setting, sans religious Intent.



Again, no. The religious ritual is a religious ritual regardless of who is performing it, and why.



TSDTexan said:


> It the fact/truth that it a religious rite is "A Priori".



I'm not sure what you're saying there... I feel some of those words should be "if", or "is".... but I'm not confident on your meaning. Can you clarify?



TSDTexan said:


> A subtle point too... is that Karate wasnt Japanese, it was Ryukyu or Okinawan.
> 
> In essence it was not influenced by Shinto rituals until it was exported to mainland Japan.



Well, yeah... that's what I was meaning when I kept saying that, no, I wasn't really talking about karate... that said, there is an amount of Shinto involved... as well as Taoism, Confucianism, and more... 



TSDTexan said:


> *Assimilation Practices in Okinawa*
> 
> In looking at Meiji restoration policies in Okinawa one can see major attempts to bring the Okinawan population into both the educational and religious sphere of the Japanese national polity. In terms of education, for example, this meant extending the 1872 Imperial Rescript on Education to the Okinawan population. This proved to be the single most important part of Japan's nationalization policy, for through educational indoctrination, the Japanese government sought to inculcate a strong sense of Japanese national identity in the Okinawan people. Through this process, Japan sought to consciously sever any ties to China that the Okinawan people still held on to, while also ending any associations that the Okinawan people had to the old Ryukyu Kingdom and it's monarchy. This process became absolutely essential for the later introduction of military inscription in 1898, which proved to be an integral part of Japan's expansionist policies.
> 
> ...



While not taking much issue with many of that, I would ask if that is a rather long copy-paste from another (uncredited) source... if so, you may want to check the "fair use" clause on the TOS... this might not pass muster.



Steve said:


> Regarding the rest, yes, sure.  I don't think anyone disagrees that getting a wafer in a church is a religious act.   I think the key here is that performing a religious act doesn't make one religious.



So here's the question, Steve (and Gerry... and, well, most here)... how are you agreeing that the religious act of engaging in taking communion, which can be stripped down to having a drink and a bite to eat, is something that is definitely a religious act, yet a specifically Shinto ritual, taking place in a building whose purpose is for the study of religious ways and methods, is not necessarily one just because you don't automatically conflate it with a religious ritual or location you're familiar with?



JR 137 said:


> In the system I train in, we have a specific protocol we follow to start and end class.
> 
> We don't have a Shinto (or any other religious shrine in the dojo (nor any other Seido dojo I've seen).  At our shinzen, we have our organization's kanji and a few things students and our CI have brought in over the years.  There's a picture of our founder (Tadashi Nakamura), and his son who he's officially named his successor.
> 
> ...



Yep, well... it's adapted, but it's certainly showing all the hallmarks of Shinto, so... yeah. It is. I might point out that a kamidana itself is not necessary for it to be Shinto, although it does make a central focal point, as well as basically screaming it out... by bowing to the front of the dojo (the kamiza... where the spirits [kami] sit), whether or not a shinzen or kamidana is present, it's still the same concept and idea.

I'd also point out that the very name of your system seems rather steeped in Buddhist thought... Seido - which refers to the "way of sincerity", or "the way of the true heart" is very much Buddhist in both the characters chosen and the intent behind each... which also matches the stated mission intent of the system, so you know... 



JR 137 said:


> I look at it as intent.  I personally look at it as a sign of respect, no different than a handshake, military salute, etc.
> 
> Military people salute the flag, which is not religiously objectionable (that I know of); I look at bowing to shinzen (which has our kanji) as pretty much the same thing.
> 
> I don't know if military people salute a picture of the president (perhaps they do under specific terms/conditions?), but bowing to our founder's picture is no different in my mind.



Okay... but the point is that this is not the same thing at all... you're equating an action of Western respect for symbolic representations (the flag or president representing the country) with a Japanese action of religious reverence, and religious observance... they're not the same thing, despite some basic similarities.



JR 137 said:


> I look at meditation as a way to quiet my mind and focus.  Close my eyes, empty my thoughts of the outside distractions, bring my breathing and tension down to a normal level.  I don't see how that goes against anything I've learned from my religion (orthodox Christian).



Okay, not a problem with that either. Again, meditation, other than zazen with Zen Buddhism, can be religious or secular... so it's up to you what way you want to approach it. And that's been the whole point... even when the acts and rituals are religious, it doesn't mean you have to subscribe to the belief systems, just be aware of them when engaging in them... then choose how you want to partake.

Oh, but it's "mokuso" for mediation, for the record... meaning, quite literally, to "silence your thoughts"... so you're actually staying in exact lock-step with the intention there.



JR 137 said:


> Even if every single person in the organization had a different interpretation and intent of our protocol, it has no bearing on mine.  I couldn't control what anyone feels, interprets, intends, etc. if I wanted to (which I don't anyway), so why get worked up about what they do?  All I can control is what I think and do.
> 
> If you interpret this stuff as religious and counter to what you're supposed to do, don't do it, simple as that.  If you don't interpret it as such, keep on truckin.'



There's a difference here between something being interpreted as religious (in personal expression and involvement), and it being a specifically religious act.



gpseymour said:


> I have difficulty seeing how an art could be so tightly tied to Shintoism that it couldn't be separated. As far as I know, there has never been a deep tie between NGA and Shintoism. We bow just once to start a class - instructor facing students, students facing the shrine area. We do refer to it as a shrine, and recognize the Shinto background to it, but in the US (the only expansion from the original dojo in Hokkaido) it has always been taught as a moment to recognize the contribution of the person represented there (some keep their senior instructor's photo there, some the person who brought it to the US, some few have a photo of the founder) and to each other. We only rarely bow other than start/end of class (when it's the next person's turn in a whole-class exercise, for instance).



You're only seeing one (overt) representation of the influence of Shinto, though... honestly, there's going to be a lot more than you think... as well as a fair bit from Buddhism as well (even more in Ueshiba's Aikido, obviously).



Paul_D said:


> I don't think so, bowing because that's the etiquette of the class doesn't mean I'm required to have an imaginary friend who lives in the sky.



You're using a Western interpretation of religion there... not what is meant in a Japanese sense... 



JR 137 said:


> It's all about intent.  Religious rituals are symbolic, not literal.  Think about it - the bread isn't truly Christ's body, the wine isn't truly his blood.  It's the practitioner's acceptance of the symbolism that makes it religious.  A non-Christian could eat/drink it purely out of respect for where he/she was and it not have any bearing on them.
> 
> Sounds like heresey, but I'm trying to flip the script on what I experienced - I've been to a synagogue once.  I was asked to wear a yamika, and did so out of respect.  That didn't make me Jewish, nor did it make me question my faith in the least bit.
> 
> ...



This is the point, though... the religious ceremony (Shinto) at the beginning of a class (and end), as well as the religious aspect of the building, the location, the original meanings, the terminology, and more, are there, whether you acknowledge them, partake in them, follow the beliefs, or not. You can partake in the ritual, and not have your heart in it... or you can have your heart in it... but that doesn't change what you're taking part in.

Similarly, wearing a yarmulke, whether you observe the religious significance or not, maintains it's religious significance... if it didn't, you wouldn't have put it on.



Druid said:


> To be fair I don't know a lot about Shinto (I actually have a book on it in my to be read pile, it may have to move up a couple spots), so I'm unsure how someone who practices it would feel about aspects of their religion being used outside their religious context.  But bowing is something that seems to be ingrained in Japanese culture beyond religion.  My guess is that it may be closer to the yamika situation then the communion one.  Bowing towards picture even if you are not actually worshiping your ancestors would be preferable as simply a sign of respect to them, then not bowing.  Someone who knows more about Shinto would probably be able to answer better.  But my point in general is that while using a certain practice from a religion doesn't automatically have religious significance to you, we should remember it still that it still has religious significance to someone and we should think about how those people would feel about their practice being used outside the context of their religion.



Bowing itself is very Japanese (and most of Asia, really)... not specifically Shinto... but Shinto bowing rituals are very much Shinto... obviously. As far as the aspects being used outside of their religious context, well, that's not really how it would be seen... 

Shinto is in everything, in a Japanese sense... it's the oldest native religion in Japan, and was always very personalised (typically to a family, or group, hence the Kuki family having their own family line of Nakatomi Ryu Shinto mentioned above). It was only when Buddhism began to be introduced, and picked up momentum, that Shinto started to be somewhat formalised, with specific shrines being erected, and the addition of small shrines in peoples homes were added (as a reminder of Shinto in the face of the new imported religion). What that meant was that both Shinto and Buddhism were suddenly sitting side-by-side in people's homes and in the community, so the idea of observing both at the same time was just accepted without any problems... 

At the end of the day, from a Japanese Shinto practice point of view, everything is Shinto... there is no "outside of the religious context", as the religious context is the entire world, and everyone (and everything) in it.



O'Malley said:


> I would not join such an organization. I think that religion is a private, intimate matter and should stay so (I share my faith openly with those who are interested but I do not impose it on others nor do I see the need to "show it off" constantly).



Yep, that's valid... but being aware of what is actually religious or not is important if such things are important to you, and your religious beliefs.



O'Malley said:


> I am both a Christian (Roman Catholic) and a martial artist and I see no need to make my faith pervade my training, and the Muslim guys at my dojo practice in the same manner. When we train, we are just aikidoka.



It's actually the other way around... the Japanese religious ideologies pervade the training... in more ways than people recognise... 



O'Malley said:


> The bowing thing, albeit being a religious ritual, does not mean giving up on my faith. O'Sensei himself used to say that you did not need to share his beliefs to practice aikido. Bowing has more to do with _respecting _the art (_sensu lato_, thus including the people who practice it, the cultural and religious components, etc.).



Yes, again, that's one way to look at it... for Ueshiba, I feel that was more about being inclusive and spreading his art... but, at his heart, there was a lot of religious aspects throughout everything he did.



O'Malley said:


> That said, to be fair, O'Sensei's philosophy of working for peace and loving and respecting others is pretty much in line with the gist of Jesus's message. Ironically, it might even make him a better Christian than a guy who, although he does Christian Kenpo and goes to church every Sunday, is a complete jerk to others in his daily life.



It's in line with many religious doctrines and teachings, frankly. And the idea that it's a purely Christian one is potentially a rather arrogant one, to my mind... after all, Ueshiba himself modelled much of his approach on his contact and immersion in the Omoto-kyo sect of Buddhism... and, when meeting the members of the Kukishin Ryu, with their practice firmly embedded in their Nakatomi Ryu Shinto, announced to the head of the system that his martial arts (spiritually) was that of the Kuki family (Shinto)... 



oftheherd1 said:


> Certainly there has been some drift, most recently due to comments by and in response to, Mr. Chris Parker.  He has made his usual well segmented replies generally picking apart other's posts.  I sometimes find them informative, sometimes humorous, sometimes I wonder what it was all about.



Hmm... I'm not sure if I'm flattered or insulted by that... ha!



Juany118 said:


> Getting back to the point noted above I think the point is this.  It depends of whether one is pedantic or not.  Martial Arts, ultimately are about physics.



Yeah... no, they're not. You could argue that the basis of the physical techniques is primarily in body mechanics, as well as some aspects of physics, but that's it... and that's not what martial arts are about. Honestly, to me, reducing martial arts to a series of physical actions is to reduce a great meal to a few of it's ingredients... 

At their heart, martial arts (talking specifically of Japanese here, as that's been the core of the comments I've been making... and is what is informing the religious aspects being discussed) are both political entities and religious observances. Many, if not the vast majority, of classical systems were set up around religious shrines and temples...  they were as much religious offerings to the shrines as anything else (even to today... martial demonstrations in Japan are set up around being religious offerings presented to shrines and temples)... many arts techniques are based in religious ideas and concepts... so, in a very real way, many (most... almost all) martial arts are, ultimately, about religion. So you know.



Juany118 said:


> Also, as much as some people may say this is wrong, in our increasingly secular society, how many people know the details of origins of the rituals that surround the martial arts.  As an example many types of Karate studied in the US are Okinawan and not Japanese in origin yet have bowing.  Is that Shinto?  Is it Buddhist or Taoist?  Is it the animistic religions of Okinawa or is it just respect?



That depends on the bow... but more importantly, that has been a big part of the point. It doesn't matter if they don't know the Shinto origin/meaning of the action, it is still Shinto... just unobserved as such. 



Juany118 said:


> I really think to, an extent, the argument is one that is so lost in perspective, how deep into history one wants to delve (which is likely determined, at least in part, by a personal bias) that it is basically an argument doomed to get lost in the weeds.



We're not talking about history, though... we're talking about current martial arts, in current dojo, in the modern world... it's just that people don't understand much of what they're doing. By a similar token, performing a karate kata with no sense of the applications (bunkai, or any other term used) doesn't change the fact that the kata is still from whichever form of karate... but the person who is aware of it's applications (meanings, intent, history, breakdown etc) will get so much more out of it than someone who simply moves around in the same sequence.



Steve said:


> There are questions that Chris raised, that are interesting (I think).
> 
> Let's say I am a student at this school.  If I were to join the United Martial Artist for Christ school, would I be participating in Christian rituals?



Speaking hypothetically, based on the information given, probably not... to be honest, there seems to be little Christian added in... more the perceived aspects of Japanese religion, whether understood, recognised, or anything  else, have been minimalised or removed. At most, there may be some prayer involved... which would be a yes on that count (obviously I haven't been to the class, so that is speculation).



Steve said:


> If yes, would participating in these rituals make me a Christian?



It would mean that you were participating in Christian rituals... but that's about it. Actually being a Christian, if it's to mean anything, must mean that you are one even outside of the dojo, and when not training/engaging in the rituals. Same with the Shinto aspect... you would be participating in a Shinto ritual... to actually be an observer of Shinto is something much further down the trail.



Steve said:


> Would choosing not to participate in Christian aspects of this art mean that I am training in a shell of an art?



If you're training in a specifically Christian school, where the tenets and beliefs of the school are based around the doctrine and beliefs held within that branch or sect of Christianity, and large parts of the syllabus/structure/organisation are geared up to be formally Christian... yet you leave off all the Christian aspects, the ritual, the influenced aspects of the training, then yeah, you'd probably only join in a small part of the actual school... which would be training in a shell of the art.



Steve said:


> And the larger, implied questions.  Is there a necessary, spiritual element to training in a martial art?  And if so, must this spiritual component be Shinto if the art originated in Japan, or can it be replaced by, say a Christian spiritual element like at the United Martial Artists for Christ?



Ah, now this is interesting... must there be? Honestly, to my mind, yes, there must. Otherwise it's just violence. All warriorship cultures have had spirituality go hand in hand with the training of their warriors, whether it be the Massai of Africa with their manhood ritual and more, or the ancient Knights of Europe, most exemplified by the Brotherhood of the Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon... or, to give the more common name, the Knights Templar... and so on and so forth. And the reason is pretty simple... the business of a warrior is to face their own potential death every day... as well as facing the idea of taking the life of another. That type of training and lifestyle must, if there's any sense of morality and human cost, spark a question of what happens at the onset of death... leading to a necessary spiritual introspection and questioning.

So, must it be Shinto if it came from Japan? Well, no... but then again, with the way Shinto is a part of much of everyday life, and is ever present, even at home, it's hard to avoid... is it the biggest influence on a particular system? Maybe, maybe not... Shorinji Kempo has it's spiritual core based in Buddhism (an interpretation of Shaolin teachings), from Doshin So (for the record, Shorinji Kempo is another modern art that is entirely based around religious teachings and spirituality). 

Can it be replaced with, say, Christianity? Well, maybe... but you'll lose the whole idea of it being a Japanese art at that point... and it would require actually being able to identify the Shinto aspects in the first place... and, frankly, that's where it would fall down, I feel.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 15, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Yep, agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs, are you going to suggest that a Church is not a religious building except for Christians? A religious building is a religious building... maybe not your personal one, but it still is. You'd be hard pressed to not describe a synagogue, a mosque, a Buddhist Temple, a Shinto shrine, a Catholic Church, an abbey, a cathedral, a chapel as not being religious buildings, no matter what religion you particularly subscribe to (or not).



We aren't talking about a building though but a ritual and they are VERY different.  A building with a big cross on it, a stature of the Buddha inside, ancestral totems, what ever.  Rituals, traditions, they evolve and change, they absorb influences from other cultures and faiths, they even sometimes, in the view of society at large, lose the religious context and become a secular tradition in main stream societies.  

-We kiss under the mistletoe but it's origin regarding kissing goes back to Norse Mythology.   Mistletoe was the only thing that could kill Baldur.  Loki used it to do just that.  in a "happier" version of the myth however the gods were able to resurrect Baldur from the dead. Overjoyed, Frigg then oddly declared mistletoe a symbol of love and vowed to plant a kiss on all those who passed beneath it.  The people kissing under it today are not however practicing modern Odinism.  

-We use the infinity symbol in modern mathematics, in some forms of Buddhism it means perfection and the union of male and female akin to Yin-Yang. 

-The modern medical profession uses as one of it's symbols the Caduceus.  They aren't worshipping Hermes.

If we look at bowing, as I said earlier, it predates all religions known today.  It started, as far as we can tell, from servants/subjects/slaves showing obedience to the master... it then evolved into religious contexts and then evolved out side them.  When it comes to society, nothing is static.  

Sure you can say "in Karate specifically it had this origin" BUT if you are looking to the past you have to ask, if we wish to be logically consistent, how did the Shinto faith get that tradition, because nothing comes from nothing.  Everything evolves and comes from something before.  Perhaps just as important this means that the way things are is not going to stay the same, it will become something else.  To draw an arbitrary line and say "well this is the origin of the tradition mere hundreds of years ago, but don't look any further into the past than that and do not look at how it may have evolved since that point of origin" misses one of the glorious things about being human.


----------



## O'Malley (Feb 15, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Yep, that's valid... but being aware of what is actually religious or not is important if such things are important to you, and your religious beliefs.
> 
> It's actually the other way around... the Japanese religious ideologies pervade the training... in more ways than people recognise...



I understand your point and agree with you. To clarify my thought, I think that it is possible to study a martial art and to partake in (at least some of) its religious rites out of respect without having to give up on one's own faith. 



> Yes, again, that's one way to look at it... for Ueshiba, I feel that was more about being inclusive and spreading his art... but, at his heart, there was a lot of religious aspects throughout everything he did.



Of course, he was a very religious man himself and some exercises come directly from his faith (Furitama undo is a most striking example) but I do not think that practicing those exercises would mean converting to Omoto-kyo, even if they were entirely religious in nature. He had students who did not share his beliefs at all, even after decades of "Furitama".



> It's in line with many religious doctrines and teachings, frankly. And the idea that it's a purely Christian one is potentially a rather arrogant one, to my mind... after all, Ueshiba himself modelled much of his approach on his contact and immersion in the Omoto-kyo sect of Buddhism... and, when meeting the members of the Kukishin Ryu, with their practice firmly embedded in their Nakatomi Ryu Shinto, announced to the head of the system that his martial arts (spiritually) was that of the Kuki family (Shinto)...



Of course, I agree with what you said but you seem to have misunderstood my post. I have never said that it was a purely Christian way of life. I just stated that O'Sensei's philosophy shared common fundamental principles with Christianity and that practicing his martial art does not prevent one from sticking to one's belief system, as I said before:

_"My point was that in his philosophy (Omoto-kyô sect) he followed principles that are in line with what Jesus taught his disciples. Actually, any human being who is caring and kind to others is following those same principles and even if they choose a different "way" I believe that they are heading to the same goal as I as a Christian. I consider them brothers, even though I can disagree with them about the dogma."_

But again, that's just my way of seeing things.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 15, 2017)

Wow Chris ... Just ... wow.

First, I don't see that every Japanese art is following and totally infused with Shinto, nor that Shinto is in every Japanese art, specifically Karate.  And despite how you might wish to modify your stance, or deny it, that is the way it comes across from you.

You paint with a very broad brush.  You imply that Shinto is willingly adhered to by all Japanese in all aspects of their daily life, and so in Japanese martial arts.  You do not account for what my have become a part of the culture that no longer has any religious meaning to many if not most people.  Does every Buddhist begin and end his worship with Shinto rituals?  Do Christians happily include Shinto in their worship?  I think not.

Second, to cover only what you said in reference to me:

*oftheherd1 said: ↑ 
*

*What was the bow called before the Japanese established Shintoism as their animistic 'national' religion?
*

*I think you're getting it all backwards, there... a bow is used within Shinto, a bow is not Shinto... as far as names, different bows have different names, but really, that's fairly different...*

You still haven't answered my question.  That is OK, since we both know what I was setting you up for was that Shinto didn't invent the bow.  You now say the bow isn't Shinto, but is used within Shinto.  That isn't how you said it before. 

OK, we can take that out.  When you bow on entering a dojo, you are not practicing Shinto

EDIT:  When I tried to post here, for some reason it left out part of what I wanted to say.  I'll try tp reconstruct it now:

*oftheherd1 said:
*

*Yes, there is much to think on, and many paths no doubt. But as to your first paragraph, we don't know how big the "Golden Calf" was, but read Exodus chapter 32.

 As to the second paragraph, I don't know if going to church is always a religious act. I think I can agree that for some it is intended to appear to be a religious act. I do think you can learn a martial art and not make bowing a religious act. I also think that the bowing in some martial arts is not a religious act. But being a Christian and going to church, or seeking to evaluate Christianity, is not like the bowing Chris Parker describes.

Click to expand...
Going to the dojo is like going to Church... quite literally. It's a Buddhist word, after all... a Buddhist concept... a Buddhist location...

 As to much of this, you're conflating your own beliefs and desires with what actually is. That's fine... it's common, really... but it doesn't change the reality of it all.*

The above makes no sense.  At least in my experience, going to a martial arts school is nothing like going to church.  Even if you are saying "dojo" is a Buddhist word, a dojo and a church are not the same.  I don't go to a martial arts school to be in church, and I don't go to church to study my martial art.  But how did Buddhism get into this?  I thought is was all supposed to be about Shintoism.

*oftheherd1 said:
*

*I would guess if you do it as Chris Parker apparently does, it might be. I doubt it would be a requirement other than Aikido. But don't take my word for it. I only know what I have seen in programs about Aikido, and I haven't seen that in Karate or Jujutsu, but I guess it could be there as well.
*

*It has nothing to do with the way I "apparently (do it)", it has to do with what it actually is...*

I'm sorry, I don't understand.  What is it that "...it actually is..."?

*oftheherd1 said:
*

*Certainly there has been some drift, most recently due to comments by and in response to, Mr. Chris Parker. He has made his usual well segmented replies generally picking apart other's posts. I sometimes find them informative, sometimes humorous, sometimes I wonder what it was all about. *  


*Hmm... I'm not sure if I'm flattered or insulted by that... ha!*

Well, you do tend to segment every post.  I do it sometimes myself as sometimes it seems to add clarity, or just ease of answering.  But as I pointed out in my answers, I don't always find what you say to make sense to me.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 15, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Wow Chris ... Just ... wow.
> 
> First, I don't see that every Japanese art is following and totally infused with Shinto, nor that Shinto is in every Japanese art, specifically Karate.  And despite how you might wish to modify your stance, or deny it, that is the way it comes across from you.
> 
> ...



I think you point out something important.  Yes the bow is important but when you enter a place where bowing is cultural AND religious, and not simply one religion where does the line get drawn. As an example, interesting "religious evolution" case study is Shinto.  Shinto started, essentially, not as a single religion but a series of Animistic cults spread throughout the islands, what rituals they have are vague and the main source is the Kojiki, which was largely a work of propaganda designed to support the Divine Right of the Emperor.  Then when Buddhism came to Japan in the 6 century AD, followed by Confucianism.

Now Confuscian thought is a philosophy and not a religion, more on this later, but many elements of both got added to Shinto, especially as Buddhism spread.  Now the idea of bowing in Buddhism, as simply a sign of showing modesty, goes back almost 1000 before this time.  Also many Martial Arts from Japan have a Buddhist religious foundation and not a Shinto one. Add onto the fact that bowing was and is used in Japanese society as a cultural way of, again, showing respect.  

So is the bowing a religious or cultural thing.  If religious which religion?  Then add in the fact that Confucian-inspired Japanese rules of demeanour, that started with the Samurai and then spread to society at large can be seen as the heart of the Ritual in the Dojo as well.  When you have so much melding of different cultures, philosophy and faiths you end up having no real answer.  Yes Martial Arts X may bow one way because the family that founded it are/were devoted to a specific religion, Shinto over there, Buddhism over here.  Another may do it because of the fact that dating back over 800 years the bowing was part of the codified etiquette of the warrior class, which was largely Confucian in origin.  

Like most things when it comes to such a diverse topic, there is no single answer.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2017)

If Christmas can be a Christian,not Christian fuzzy mash of concepts all at the same time.





Then bowing in a dojo can be Shinto,non Shinto or even Christian as well.

Religious riturals are not as set in stone as people would like us to believe. Regardless as to their origin.

Oh look Shinto is a fuzzy mash of stuff as well. What a suprise.
BBC - Religions - Shinto: Shinto history


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 15, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh boy...
> 
> Look, there's a lot to clarify and cover, so this'll take a fair bit... but I'll try to keep each response short... well, as short as I can, anyway. Anyone who sees their name might want to just skip through to those areas... as there'll be a lot of doubling up here.
> 
> ...



You must get really tired from the burden of always having to correct everything little thing everyone says.  No idea where you find the energy.

"For the record," sorry I misspelled mokuso.  Being an imperfect typist, I make mistakes in spelling every now and again, yeah? (As you like to say)

As for the name Seido, I'm quite clear where the name comes from.  I do study the style, have read all books from the founder, trained in his class a few times, and have met and conversed with him several times, yeah?  Quite sure I know the history behind it, "so you know..."

Call it whatever you want, but I look at the opening and closing of class as a sign of respect - respect for the organization as a whole, respect for the founder, respect for my teacher, and respect for everyone in attendance that I'm training alongside.  The word Rei literally means, respect, yeah?  Doesn't literally mean bow, yeah?  Doesn't mean worship, yeah?  But you know this.  But again, call it what you will, it's all about intent.  I have my intent, you have yours, and everyone has there's.

There's a way to communicate without being a know-it-all, arrogant SOB.  I'm sure I haven't said it yet, and it's overdue... Thank you for your crusade of correcting all that is wrong in this world.  You take so much time out of your busy day to correct all us ill informed underlings.  There's a special place waiting for you in heaven when your time comes.*

*If you believe in that sort of thing.  Nothing wrong with it you do or don't.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 15, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> There's a way to communicate without being a know-it-all, arrogant SOB.  I'm sure I haven't said it yet, and it's overdue... Thank you for your crusade of correcting all that is wrong in this world.  You take so much time out of your busy day to correct all us ill informed underlings.  There's a special place waiting for you in heaven when your time comes.*
> 
> *If you believe in that sort of thing.  Nothing wrong with it you do or don't.



I hate to say this but especially since some forms of Japanese MA's bow with an origin in the Confucian (read philosophical, not religious) influence that started with the Warrior Class/Samurai almost 1000 years ago. Still others bow with an origin in Zen Buddhism.  It is a documented fact that there is no single reason for bowing in Japanese Martial Arts.  I was just trying to dodge being this blunt.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 15, 2017)

Yet again another post that is spot on by Chris that breaks down and explains exactly what everyone needs to hear but probably doesn't want to acknowledge.  I see people trying to work around and that is okay.  However, justify it as you want but it still is exactly what it is!


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 15, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yet again another post that is spot on by Chris that breaks down and explains exactly what everyone needs to hear but probably doesn't want to acknowledge.  I see people trying to work around and that is okay.  However, justify it as you want but it still is exactly what it is!



How so...He says specifically "Shinto" in origin when there are arts in Japan that draw their roots not from Shinto but explicitly from Buddhist or from the Samurai code of Conduct that has A LOT of Confucian thought.  I totally get that Chris knows a lot, but one can't ignore the arts whose origins are in Buddhist teachings of the melange, founded in Confucian thought, that was the codified code of conduct of the warrior class and then spread to society at large roughly 800 years ago.  I was, tbh, shocked at the fact he ignored these other factors but tried to be "round about" for the sake of being polite in my critique.

Heck it gets even murkier because the Shinto faith in its evolution absorbed things from both Buddhism and Confucianism as they spread throughout Japan so it gets even murkier.

These are actual historical facts anyone can research if they bother to do so.  One of the things I actually love about Japanese History is that it is so unlike the West.  Imagine Christian Europe, 1000 years ago.  What would have happened if suddenly a Religion came from elsewhere to contest Christianity?  In Japan however they let Buddhism do its thing.  Shinto also did it's thing but also took some stuff from Buddhism.  Same with the Confucian Philosophy when it came along.  Rather than fight the knew the powers that be figured out ways to make the new suit their purposes.

If he hadn't specifically named a single influence I wouldnt have an issue, but he ignored the fact that Japan, and it's Martial Arts, have multiple religious/philosophical influences and as such there is no one size fits all answer.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 15, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It is a documented fact that there is no single reason for bowing in Japanese Martial Arts.



A reason for bowing in Japanese martial arts is it is part of Japanese culture.  If you're studying a "traditional" Japanese martial art, part of that tradition may include practicing parts of the culture. This may also include Japanese terminology, removing shoes, etc.

I like the bowing.  It makes it more formal for me.  If I were to eliminate anything cultural from the art, it would be removing the shoes.  Far more benefits to wearing them than not - being barefoot during self defense isn't nearly as common as when wearing shoes, reducing foot disease transmission, reducing stress on the feet, and so on.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 15, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yet again another post that is spot on by Chris that breaks down and explains exactly what everyone needs to hear but probably doesn't want to acknowledge.  I see people trying to work around and that is okay.  However, justify it as you want but it still is exactly what it is!



Quite often it's not the message, but the delivery.  No one needs to be talked down to.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 15, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> A reason for bowing in Japanese martial arts is it is part of Japanese culture.  If you're studying a "traditional" Japanese martial art, part of that tradition may practicing parts of the culture. This may also include Japanese terminology, removing shoes, etc.
> 
> I like the bowing.  It makes it more formal for me.  If I were to eliminate anything cultural from the art, it would be removing the shoes.  Far more benefits to wearing them than not - being barefoot during self defense isn't nearly as common as when wearing shoes, reducing foot disease transmission, reducing stress on the feet, and so on.



Sorta yes sorta no.  There are Lineages that simply use the cultural norm.  That is when I speak of the arts that follow what was codified for the warrior class as this eventually spread throughout society as a whole.

However there are specific Lineages that are very steeped in Shinto and the bowing was, to their mind related to the Shinto faith.  There are also arts/lineages that were/are very steeped in Zen Buddhism and the bowing finds its purpose in that faith.

My issue with what Chris said had nothing to do with denying the fact that some Japanese Martial Arts do have the bowing with an origin in Shintoism.  This is indeed true.  My issue was that he made it sound like this is global in scope (in terms of Japanese Martial Arts) and this is not true.

PS if I misinterpreted and Chris did not mean "all forms of Japanese Karate have Shinto root and no other" then I will say "my bad."


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 15, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Sorta yes sorta no.  There are Lineages that simply use the cultural norm.  That is when I speak of the arts that follow what was codified for the warrior class as this eventually spread throughout society as a whole.
> 
> However there are specific Lineages that are very steeped in Shinto and the bowing was, to their mind related to the Shinto faith.  There are also arts/lineages that were/are very steeped in Zen Buddhism and the bowing finds its purpose in that faith.
> 
> ...



I agree with what you're saying.  I didn't mean to imply bowing was strictly cultural and never religious in origin.  I was just stating a counterpoint to your "...there is no single reason for bowing in Japanese martial arts."

Edit: now that I reread it, I think you mean "no single reason" as not one reason, but many reasons why bowing is performed?  I thought you meant there's no reason.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 15, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I agree with what you're saying.  I didn't mean to imply bowing was strictly cultural and never religious in origin.  I was just stating a counterpoint to your "...there is no single reason for bowing in Japanese martial arts."
> 
> Edit: now that I reread it, I think you mean "no single reason" as not one reason, but many reasons why bowing is performed?  I thought you meant there's no reason.



In terms of your edit, exactly.  There is a reason.  Some secular, some Shinto, some Buddhist etc.  My issue was with what I saw as "one reason".  That isn't true.


----------



## Steve (Feb 15, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yet again another post that is spot on by Chris that breaks down and explains exactly what everyone needs to hear but probably doesn't want to acknowledge.  I see people trying to work around and that is okay.  However, justify it as you want but it still is exactly what it is!


This post is a real shame.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> That might be true.  But I would be uncomfortable participating in a religious ritual of any kind that appeared to show me as worshiping another deity than the God I believe in.
> 
> Along with that is the problem of being able to effectively witness to others about my beliefs and show them any worthwhile reason to seek salvation through the grace given by God.
> 
> ...


And that's the larger point, OTH. This is a philosophical question on its face (is it worshiping/religion, or isn't it). However, within the bounds of your own situation, the only thing that really matters is your own beliefs on it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

Steve said:


> There are questions that Chris raised, that are interesting (I think).
> 
> Let's say I am a student at this school.  If I were to join the United Martial Artist for Christ school, would I be participating in Christian rituals?
> 
> ...


I'll tack on one more part, if you don't mind, Steve. Must the spiritual element (if one is included) be religious?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

John Brewer said:


> You are welcome to your opinion but as noted in my reply to the first post UMAFC is an outreach not a karate program. Why is it a problem if I want my martial arts to encompass my relationship with God?


He never said it was a problem, just that it doesn't make sense to him. It doesn't really make sense to me, either. And it need not, so long as it makes sense to those involved.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> I'll give an example... I was teaching a Hanbo (three foot staff) technique last night... it's a fairly simple technique against a low strike to the body (which could also be a knife thrust, by the way), and the response is to strike down on top of the hand/wrist, then pull the staff back horizontally, in order to strike horizontally around to the side/back of the opponent. Okay, fairly simple... but, if it's a punch, is the arm still there for your strike down? And why a horizontal strike, when a thrust is right there, and easier to do? Well, it comes down to esoteric Shinto-ism.
> 
> The technique is from a branch of the Kukishin Ryu... who are famous for having, not just martial arts, but a family transmitted form of Shinto, called Nakatomi Shinto (not uncommon in Japanese arts). Within Shinto, there are concepts of protective spells and so forth, the best known being Kuji Kiri (nine syllable cutting), with the next level being Juji Kiri (ten syllable cutting)... with the "tenth syllable/character" being the spell being locked in in the first place. As a result, the striking method of the weapon is a vertical strike down, followed by a horizontal strike across... in Japanese, the character for "ten" (Ju - 十) is a cross... a vertical and horizontal line intersecting... which means that the technique is, not only a powerful way to strike, but a way of invoking a protective spell for your own well being when engaging in combat.


I don't think knowing anything about the spell is actually necessary to effectively use the technique. It's an interesting way to understand why it is taught that way, but there's no reason it has to be taught that particular way as the art evolves, unless that's the most effective approach to the technique. If it's actually the most effective set of movements, then it's not necessary to know that it's related to casting a spell.

So, one could learn effective use of that weapon, learning the techniques as they have evolved (or not evolved), without necessarily having any connection to the original religious context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs, are you going to suggest that a Church is not a religious building except for Christians? A religious building is a religious building... maybe not your personal one, but it still is. You'd be hard pressed to not describe a synagogue, a mosque, a Buddhist Temple, a Shinto shrine, a Catholic Church, an abbey, a cathedral, a chapel as not being religious buildings, no matter what religion you particularly subscribe to (or not).


This comes back to one of my earlier points. Is a building that was once home to a religious order (say, a small retail-front church) religious after that order moves on? Of course not. Even if it was originally built as a religious building, it does not remain so forever if it is no longer used for religious purposes. (Note: We may continue to refer to it using the original terms, like "the old monastery", but if it's now a restaurant, it's not a religious building.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> You're only seeing one (overt) representation of the influence of Shinto, though... honestly, there's going to be a lot more than you think... as well as a fair bit from Buddhism as well (even more in Ueshiba's Aikido, obviously)


You're looking at things from one angle, and I think it's a frankly overly-narrow viewpoint. If I understand you correctly, anything that was ever influenced by Shintoism that shows up in a MA gives that MA a direct link to Shintoism. I disagree with that, almost entirely. It's a philosophical statement, and is open to a large amount of personal debate, so your stance of absolutism on this seems unsupportable.

Now, if I'm misreading that, you may simply be stating that there are Shinto influences from the culture. I'd not argue that for a moment. Just as any MA that originated in the Southern states of the US in the last 200 years would probably have a lot of influence from Christianity, because bits of Christianity have become cultural in the area. That would not mean, however, that these hypothetical arts couldn't be separated from the religion without changing the art. The art is the physical principles (and sometimes the ethical/moral principles), and those can be taught, practiced, and performed in the complete absence of the religion (and even in the absence of understanding of it).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> So here's the question, Steve (and Gerry... and, well, most here)... how are you agreeing that the religious act of engaging in taking communion, which can be stripped down to having a drink and a bite to eat, is something that is definitely a religious act, yet a specifically Shinto ritual, taking place in a building whose purpose is for the study of religious ways and methods, is not necessarily one just because you don't automatically conflate it with a religious ritual or location you're familiar with?


Because the building I train in does not have the purpose of studying religious ways and methods. Entirely different situation.


----------



## John Brewer (Feb 16, 2017)

When I think of something that doesn't make sense I normally do not use the word need, however it could be my misunderstanding. 

I wanted to point out the fact that *you do not need* your martial art and your religion to intertwine like this and that joining such an organization (in the abstract sense, I can not speak about UMAC in particular) does not necessarily mean that you will become a better Christian that you would have been had you kept martial arts and religion separate.



gpseymour said:


> He never said it was a problem, just that it doesn't make sense to him. It doesn't really make sense to me, either. And it need not, so long as it makes sense to those involved.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 16, 2017)

You may not like how the message is presented  or the messenger but if it is correct... 
*
You have to look at the old arts of Japan or Koryu arts.* 

*For perspective from: Wikipedia: Koryu

Koryū* (古流?, old style) and *kobudō* (古武道?, ancient martial arts[1]) are Japanese terms that are used to describe Japanese martial arts that predate the Meiji restoration (1868). The term is contrasted with Gendai budo "modern martial arts" (or shinbudo "new martial arts") which refer to schools developed after the Meiji Restoration.[2][3]

They are the Koryu arts as Chris has explained repeatedly infused with Shinto and that if you take the Shinto components out of them they are then pretty much just shells.  Chris even explained how techniques are infused with Shinto.  He of course explained it better than I.  It is hard to hear but it is exactly what it is!

Now, Juany118 you mentioned Japanese Karate several times but Karate is origionally from Okinawa and their traditions stem from that place of origin.  Even the later Karate that was founded in Japan is a relatively newer martial system that is a Gendai Budo of Okinawan origins.

Also taken from the Wikipedia link:
*Okinawan kobudō[edit]*
Kobudō can also be used to refer to Okinawan kobudō where it describes collectively all Okinawan combative systems. These are entirely different and basically unrelated systems. The use of the term kobudō should not be limited, as it popularly is, to the describing of the ancient weapons systems of Okinawa.[11][12] 
(note the highlighted part as they being unrelated systems ie. Japanese Koryu and Kobudo and the systems of Okinawan Kobudo)

Here is a list of the Koryu arts of Japan or the classical Japanese systems taken from Koryu.com:
Classical Martial Traditions of Japan: Koryu.com Guide to Classical Japanese Martial Arts

Here is the list copied and pasted:
_Ryuha list by name_

Araki-ryu kogusoku
Asayama Ichiden-ryu heiho
Daito-ryu aikijujutsu
Higo Ko-ryu naginatajutsu
Hokushin Itto-ryu kenjutsu
Hontai Yoshin-ryu jujutsu





Hozoin-ryu Takada-ha sojutsu
Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu kenjutsu
Isshin-ryu kusarigamajutsu
Kage-ryu battojutsu
Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryu kenjutsu
Kashima Shinryu kenjutsu
Kashima Shinto-ryu kenjutsu
Katayama Hoki-ryu iaijutsu
Kogen Itto-ryu kenjutsu
Kurama-ryu kenjutsu
Maniwa Nen-ryu kenjutsu
Mizoguchi-ha Itto-ryu kenjutsu
Mugai-ryu iaijutsu
Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu iaijutsu
Muso Shinden-ryu iaijutsu
Ono-ha Itto-ryu kenjutsu




Owari Kan-ryu sojutsu
Sekiguchi Shinshin-ryu jujutsu
Shingyoto-ryu kenjutsu
Shinmuso Hayashizaki-ryu battojutsu
Shinto Muso-ryu jojutsu




Shojitsu Kenri Kataichi-ryu battojutsu
Sosuishitsu-ryu jujutsu
Suio-ryu kenjutsu
Takamura-ha Shindo Yoshin-ryu jujutsu




Takenouchi-ryu jujutsu
Tamiya-ryu iaijutsu
Tatsumi-ryu heiho
Tendo-ryu naginatajutsu
Tenjin Shinyo-ryu jujutsu
Tenshinsho-den Katori Shinto-ryu heiho




Toda-ha Buko-ryu naginatajutsu




Toyama-ryu battojutsu
Uchida-ryu tanjojutsu
Yagyu Seigo-ryu battojutsu
Yagyu Shingan-ryu taijutsu
Yagyu Shinkage-ryu hyoho




Yoshin-ryu naginatajutsu
This is the Koryu.com list but the Skoss's are meticulous in their documenting Koryu and the information on their site is excellent. (I did not have the time to double check everything on it)

Now, if you train in a system that is infused with Shinto can you as a Christian reconcile that.  *That is up to you.*  Personally it does not bother me but... that does not change the fact that they are infused with Shinto and that how Chris laid things out is correct.

Now most of the people training here and posting here are not in a Japanese classical system or Koryu.  So, if you are in a modern system of Japan or Gendai Budo or Shinbudo or *your system is even further removed* from that or if you are practicing a form of Okinawan Karate what do you care????  *It doesn't really effect you at all!*


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that's the larger point, OTH. This is a philosophical question on its face (is it worshiping/religion, or isn't it). However, within the bounds of your own situation, the only thing that really matters is your own beliefs on it.



I understand your point.  But I think in the way the thread drift has most recently gone, for a religious person, it must be understood from a person's own religious perspective.  But ...

I guess philosophical question to a non-religious person, religious question to a religious person.


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Because the building I train in does not have the purpose of studying religious ways and methods. Entirely different situation.


And, for the record, I've said several times that, while bowing itself may not be a Shinto ritual, I have no problem agreeing that bowing in a particular manner to honor specific people can be one.  I've said so multiple times.

I just don't agree with how Chris P. extends that further to suggest that without Shinto, one is left with an empty shell.

This all kind of reminds me of the story of how we ended up with $.99 and .95 pricing.   We tend to think itstarted out as a a psychology thing, but it was really a practical issue of keeping employees from skimming the till.  Does knowing that change the practice?  No, but it's interesting.   


Brian R. VanCise said:


> You may not like how the message is presented  or the messenger but if it is correct...
> *
> You have to look at the old arts of Japan or Koryu arts.*
> 
> ...


So, your position boils down to a couple things.

1:  You believe chris' post is historically accurate, and it jives with Wikipedia.

2:  you believe he is more creidible than others who seem to know what they're talking about, as well.   I don't know that juany is less credible than Chris, for example.

3:  MT endorses Chris as a mentor, and the moderation staff will back him up when needed.

4:  if one don't train in a Koryu art, you are suggesting that a person should just accept whatever Chris says as correct, even if it is an opinion or a matter of philosophy. 

As I said before, this is genuinely disappointing.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 16, 2017)

Okay, things are still getting misunderstood here... most of the responses are over things I haven't said, implied, or mentioned... so I'm going to clarify again.



Juany118 said:


> We aren't talking about a building though but a ritual and they are VERY different.  A building with a big cross on it, a stature of the Buddha inside, ancestral totems, what ever.  Rituals, traditions, they evolve and change, they absorb influences from other cultures and faiths, they even sometimes, in the view of society at large, lose the religious context and become a secular tradition in main stream societies.



No, in this sense, we were talking specifically about a building. I was responding to Steve's comment about going to a church being a religious concept (worship by going to a church... rather than "worship by going to church"... although that is largely the same thing), so yeah, I was addressing specifically the building itself. And yes, a church is a specifically religious building... as is a mosque... and a synagogue... a church is built on sanctified and consecrated ground... it is built to be place for centralised worship and observation of God and His teachings.

It's exactly the same with Japanese religions, of course... Shrines are centralised areas for Shinto observation.. Temples for Buddhism... and, then you have smaller forms of each. The rituals are then undertaken there as well... the location adding to the power and relevance of the rituals themselves. And, again, a church is a religious building... and, at it's heart, so is a dojo.



Juany118 said:


> -We kiss under the mistletoe but it's origin regarding kissing goes back to Norse Mythology.   Mistletoe was the only thing that could kill Baldur.  Loki used it to do just that.  in a "happier" version of the myth however the gods were able to resurrect Baldur from the dead. Overjoyed, Frigg then oddly declared mistletoe a symbol of love and vowed to plant a kiss on all those who passed beneath it.  The people kissing under it today are not however practicing modern Odinism.
> 
> -We use the infinity symbol in modern mathematics, in some forms of Buddhism it means perfection and the union of male and female akin to Yin-Yang.
> 
> -The modern medical profession uses as one of it's symbols the Caduceus.  They aren't worshipping Hermes.



None of that is relevant, or even similar to what I'm talking about.



Juany118 said:


> If we look at bowing, as I said earlier, it predates all religions known today.  It started, as far as we can tell, from servants/subjects/slaves showing obedience to the master... it then evolved into religious contexts and then evolved out side them.  When it comes to society, nothing is static.



We're not talking about bowing, though. We're talking about a particular usage of bowing, as found in martial art dojo, that is, in reality, a Shinto ritual. Frankly, forget the idea of just thinking about bowing... bowing is just a part of the way the ritual is done... it's got nothing to do with how bowing developed, or anything else you're going on about... 

Again, you're looking at things backwards, and missing the reality of the situation.  



Juany118 said:


> Sure you can say "in Karate specifically it had this origin" BUT if you are looking to the past you have to ask, if we wish to be logically consistent, how did the Shinto faith get that tradition, because nothing comes from nothing.  Everything evolves and comes from something before.  Perhaps just as important this means that the way things are is not going to stay the same, it will become something else.  To draw an arbitrary line and say "well this is the origin of the tradition mere hundreds of years ago, but don't look any further into the past than that and do not look at how it may have evolved since that point of origin" misses one of the glorious things about being human.



Yeah, that's all completely missing the point. It's got nothing to do with where Shinto came from... nothing at all. The point is that Shinto is intrinsically part of Japanese martial arts (and, I'm amazed I have to repeat this again, but I'm not talking specifically about karate, okay?)... not where Shinto itself came from. That's a completely different story. Again, you're looking at entirely the wrong things, and in the wrong direction. It wasn't a matter of the martial arts existing, and Shinto being brought into it, but the other way around... Shinto existed, and martial arts sprung up around it... 



O'Malley said:


> I understand your point and agree with you. To clarify my thought, I think that it is possible to study a martial art and to partake in (at least some of) its religious rites out of respect without having to give up on one's own faith.



Yep, and that's been said by me all along. My point was that you could certainly do that, but if you did it by sticking your fingers in your ears, and burying your head in the sand, pretending it's not a religious act, is to deny the reality of the situation.

If your religion forbids you engaging in other religious practices, you should know that... and then, you can choose to ignore that part of your doctrine, that's up to you.



O'Malley said:


> Of course, he was a very religious man himself and some exercises come directly from his faith (Furitama undo is a most striking example) but I do not think that practicing those exercises would mean converting to Omoto-kyo, even if they were entirely religious in nature. He had students who did not share his beliefs at all, even after decades of "Furitama".



There was not, nor has there been, any mention of converting to any other religion... and, it's important to recognise, from a Japanese perspective, there is no problem following the observations and ideas of multiple religions simultaneously... 



O'Malley said:


> Of course, I agree with what you said but you seem to have misunderstood my post. I have never said that it was a purely Christian way of life. I just stated that O'Sensei's philosophy shared common fundamental principles with Christianity and that practicing his martial art does not prevent one from sticking to one's belief system, as I said before:
> 
> _"My point was that in his philosophy (Omoto-kyô sect) he followed principles that are in line with what Jesus taught his disciples. Actually, any human being who is caring and kind to others is following those same principles and even if they choose a different "way" I believe that they are heading to the same goal as I as a Christian. I consider them brothers, even though I can disagree with them about the dogma."_
> 
> But again, that's just my way of seeing things.



No, I understood your post... my point was simply that the labelling of his behaviour as "very Christian" seems to put Christianity as a paragon of morality and correct behaviour... and, while it can certainly be seen that way by it's adherants, it's a little arrogant to present it as being above the actual heart and source of Ueshiba's behaviours (spiritual and otherwise).



oftheherd1 said:


> Wow Chris ... Just ... wow.



Hmm... struck a chord?



oftheherd1 said:


> First, I don't see that every Japanese art is following and totally infused with Shinto, nor that Shinto is in every Japanese art, specifically Karate.  And despite how you might wish to modify your stance, or deny it, that is the way it comes across from you.



Well... yeah. The vast majority of arts are based in Shinto, at least in a number of aspects. But (again, not sure how many times I have to repeat this) I have not been talking about karate specifically... at all. 

That said, no, they're not "following" Shinto, they have a reasonably large amount of Shinto thought, methodology, practice, and concepts within their structure. That is not the same thing.



oftheherd1 said:


> You paint with a very broad brush.  You imply that Shinto is willingly adhered to by all Japanese in all aspects of their daily life, and so in Japanese martial arts.  You do not account for what my have become a part of the culture that no longer has any religious meaning to many if not most people.  Does every Buddhist begin and end his worship with Shinto rituals?  Do Christians happily include Shinto in their worship?  I think not.



You're approaching this from a Western, Abrahamic standpoint... 

Western religions tend towards exclusivity... to be involved in one means to be in exclusion of all others... you can't both believe that Jesus was a prophet of Islam, and believe that Jesus was the literal Son of God and the Messiah... while also believing that the Messiah has not yet come... they cancel each other out. This extends to differing interpretations of the same doctrine and texts. Japanese religions are different... there is no problem observing Shinto rituals in your home before starting out to work in the morning, then attending a Buddhist service for a wedding or funeral, or simply any occasion... while at the same time describing yourself as a Christian. So, you may think not... but, in a Japanese sense, yeah, very much so. No matter what you may think.

As a result, it's got nothing to do with people "willingly adhering" to Shinto... it's really just a part of daily life in Japan for most people (it's losing it's sway, but still present enough for it to not be anything unusual in a dojo... even enough that it doesn't need to be explained to any Japanese coming across it in a dojo setting or outside).



oftheherd1 said:


> You still haven't answered my question.  That is OK, since we both know what I was setting you up for was that Shinto didn't invent the bow.  You now say the bow isn't Shinto, but is used within Shinto.  That isn't how you said it before.



Actually, I did answer it, in that your questions premise was false in the first place... and I was pointing that out.

As said, the question isn't anything about where the custom of bowing came from... it's what is or is not a Shinto ritual... which is allowing us to identify what parts of a martial arts class are actually religious rituals, even if not identified as such. It is about specific actions that do involve bows... specific bows, done in a specific way, with a particular direction... which makes it Shinto. It's not that they're bowing, it's how the bow is done.



oftheherd1 said:


> OK, we can take that out.  When you bow on entering a dojo, you are not practicing Shinto



Actually, yes, you absolutely are.

The bow is done towards the kamiza/shinzen/shomen... and is, quite literally, a way of announcing yourself to the kami in the dojo itself... asking permission to enter, asking them to look over your training there. The bow on the way out is thanking them, and taking your leave of them again. This is why you bow even if you're the only one in the dojo... it is Shinto.



oftheherd1 said:


> The above makes no sense.  At least in my experience, going to a martial arts school is nothing like going to church.  Even if you are saying "dojo" is a Buddhist word, a dojo and a church are not the same.  I don't go to a martial arts school to be in church, and I don't go to church to study my martial art.  But how did Buddhism get into this?  I thought is was all supposed to be about Shintoism.



I get that you don't see it... in the West, we tend not to see a dojo as a religious building... but, at it's heart, it is one. Martial arts were centred around religious centres, buildings, shrines and temples... they originated based in votive offerings and focused on protective deities... and no, it's not about Shintoism... it's about religious aspects found within martial arts... which does include Buddhism, as well as Shintoism, and others.



oftheherd1 said:


> I'm sorry, I don't understand.  What is it that "...it actually is..."



What I mean is that this is not my opinion, or my interpretation. I am simply stating the fact that the Shinto rituals are Shinto... and that is what they actually are. Nothing to do with how I "apparently do (things)", it's about what the reality is in the first place.



oftheherd1 said:


> Well, you do tend to segment every post.  I do it sometimes myself as sometimes it seems to add clarity, or just ease of answering.  But as I pointed out in my answers, I don't always find what you say to make sense to me.



Sure.... and, whenever you find yourself disagreeing, by all means, question me, present your side, and I'll either counter or change my view. And when you simply don't follow what I'm saying, ask, and I'll clarify as best I can. 



drop bear said:


> If Christmas can be a Christian,not Christian fuzzy mash of concepts all at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Religious rituals can, and do, change... however, performing a Shinto ritual, including bowing, is performing a Shinto ritual... bowing, by itself, is not one... but a Shinto ritual often does involve bowing. Conflating the two is where many seem to be going wrong here.



JR 137 said:


> You must get really tired from the burden of always having to correct everything little thing everyone says.  No idea where you find the energy.



Okay, you can leave off the passive-aggressive stance when corrected, and given better information, yeah? You don't want to learn, that's fine... but if I feel I can help give a better understanding of something, I'm going to attempt it. It's up to you how you receive it.



JR 137 said:


> "For the record," sorry I misspelled mokuso.  Being an imperfect typist, I make mistakes in spelling every now and again, yeah? (As you like to say)



I only brought it up as you mis-spelled it the same way twice... which would normally indicate that it wasn't a mistake in spelling as much as a lack of knowledge of the word itself. And, as the word shows the meaning, and the meaning was very much what you were describing, I felt that showing that was pertinent.



JR 137 said:


> As for the name Seido, I'm quite clear where the name comes from.  I do study the style, have read all books from the founder, trained in his class a few times, and have met and conversed with him several times, yeah?  Quite sure I know the history behind it, "so you know..."



So... you're aware of such influences? Is there a reason you're arguing, then?



JR 137 said:


> Call it whatever you want, but I look at the opening and closing of class as a sign of respect - respect for the organization as a whole, respect for the founder, respect for my teacher, and respect for everyone in attendance that I'm training alongside.  The word Rei literally means, respect, yeah?  Doesn't literally mean bow, yeah?  Doesn't mean worship, yeah?  But you know this.  But again, call it what you will, it's all about intent.  I have my intent, you have yours, and everyone has there's.



Yes, the term "rei" can literally mean "bow"... or "a ritual"... "ceremony"... "thanks"... "gratitude"... "a gift"... "a presentation"... "manners"... "etiquette"... and, in combinations, can take on aspects of worship, devotion, praise, adoration, even of prostrating yourself... Japanese is a highly contextual language... trying to lock away a single definition just doesn't work here. This is a good example, as everything you say it doesn't literally mean, it actually does.

For reference, see here: #kanji 礼 - Jisho.org



JR 137 said:


> There's a way to communicate without being a know-it-all, arrogant SOB.  I'm sure I haven't said it yet, and it's overdue... Thank you for your crusade of correcting all that is wrong in this world.  You take so much time out of your busy day to correct all us ill informed underlings.  There's a special place waiting for you in heaven when your time comes.*



Mate, believe me when I tell you that I correct such a small amount of what I see here that this hardly qualifies as a crusade... but thanks for your apparent disdain of learning from others. That helps in discussions.



JR 137 said:


> *If you believe in that sort of thing.  Nothing wrong with it you do or don't.



Not even slightly, for the record.



Juany118 said:


> I hate to say this but especially since some forms of Japanese MA's bow with an origin in the Confucian (read philosophical, not religious) influence that started with the Warrior Class/Samurai almost 1000 years ago. Still others bow with an origin in Zen Buddhism.  It is a documented fact that there is no single reason for bowing in Japanese Martial Arts.  I was just trying to dodge being this blunt.



Being blunt is okay... it just might help more if you were right.

Confucianism played a big part in the formulation of the social structure of early Japan, most notably in the formation of Heian courts, which (in their way) were instrumental in the formulation of what would later be known as the samurai class... additionally, both Shinto and Buddhism were large influences on pretty much all of Japanese life... particularly once Buddhism was introduced to Japan in around the mid 6th Century, which started the formalisation of Shinto... however, while both used bowing as part of their expressions of their religious rites and rituals (more so in Shinto than Buddhism, but obviously present in both), the whole idea of "there are bows, therefore it is x-religion" is not the point I have made at any stage. my point has been specifically about the particular bowing methods used.

For interests sake, though, can you identify any Classical Japanese arts that have their bowing originating in Zen Buddhism...?

Oh, and it's not a documented fact... it can't be, in the same way that you can't document a lack. It is a supposition you're making. That's quite a different thing. More importantly, it's a supposition you're making based on a false premise (that this is about bowing in and of itself), so that further removes your idea from being relevant to the discussion here.



Juany118 said:


> How so...He says specifically "Shinto" in origin when there are arts in Japan that draw their roots not from Shinto but explicitly from Buddhist or from the Samurai code of Conduct that has A LOT of Confucian thought.



Please list these arts who draw their roots from Buddhism rather than Shinto, and please identify what specifically is from Buddhism, as well as citing the areas which would commonly be Shinto. Next, please define the "Samurai code of conduct" that you're referring to... 



Juany118 said:


> I totally get that Chris knows a lot, but one can't ignore the arts whose origins are in Buddhist teachings of the melange, founded in Confucian thought, that was the codified code of conduct of the warrior class and then spread to society at large roughly 800 years ago.  I was, tbh, shocked at the fact he ignored these other factors but tried to be "round about" for the sake of being polite in my critique.



There are very good reasons he ignored much of that... one being that they aren't overly relevant to the points I was making, and another being that much of what you're talking about is romanticised and inaccurate.



Juany118 said:


> Heck it gets even murkier because the Shinto faith in its evolution absorbed things from both Buddhism and Confucianism as they spread throughout Japan so it gets even murkier.



Yeah.... again, not overly relevant.



Juany118 said:


> These are actual historical facts anyone can research if they bother to do so.  One of the things I actually love about Japanese History is that it is so unlike the West.  Imagine Christian Europe, 1000 years ago.  What would have happened if suddenly a Religion came from elsewhere to contest Christianity?  In Japan however they let Buddhism do its thing.  Shinto also did it's thing but also took some stuff from Buddhism.  Same with the Confucian Philosophy when it came along.  Rather than fight the knew the powers that be figured out ways to make the new suit their purposes.



Well, for one thing, there was another religion that came along to contest Christianity... it was Christianity... for the record... but, again, this is not really relevant to the points at all. It doesn't matter where Shinto adopted anything from, or where Buddhism came from, if it's in the martial arts, it's in the martial arts. 



Juany118 said:


> If he hadn't specifically named a single influence I wouldnt have an issue, but he ignored the fact that Japan, and it's Martial Arts, have multiple religious/philosophical influences and as such there is no one size fits all answer.



Again, waiting for anything that contradicts me, other than "well, there were other things as well"... 



JR 137 said:


> A reason for bowing in Japanese martial arts is it is part of Japanese culture.  If you're studying a "traditional" Japanese martial art, part of that tradition may include practicing parts of the culture. This may also include Japanese terminology, removing shoes, etc.



Well, yes. But we're not talking about just bowing... we're talking about specific bowing rituals and ceremonies, which are, one more time, specifically Shinto rituals.



JR 137 said:


> I like the bowing.  It makes it more formal for me.  If I were to eliminate anything cultural from the art, it would be removing the shoes.  Far more benefits to wearing them than not - being barefoot during self defense isn't nearly as common as when wearing shoes, reducing foot disease transmission, reducing stress on the feet, and so on.



You think its' about self defence...? Hmm... 



Juany118 said:


> Sorta yes sorta no.  There are Lineages that simply use the cultural norm.  That is when I speak of the arts that follow what was codified for the warrior class as this eventually spread throughout society as a whole.



What was codified for the warrior class? Seriously, I'm interested to what you think here.



Juany118 said:


> However there are specific Lineages that are very steeped in Shinto and the bowing was, to their mind related to the Shinto faith.  There are also arts/lineages that were/are very steeped in Zen Buddhism and the bowing finds its purpose in that faith.



We are talking about a common class opening (and closing) ceremony in Japanese martial arts, which is specifically, overtly, directly, and only a Shinto ritual. That's it. You're conflating completely different ideas, and, at the end of the day, simply arguing that yes, there is a great deal of religious influence on Japanese martial arts... so I'm not sure what point you think you're trying to make.



Juany118 said:


> My issue with what Chris said had nothing to do with denying the fact that some Japanese Martial Arts do have the bowing with an origin in Shintoism.  This is indeed true.  My issue was that he made it sound like this is global in scope (in terms of Japanese Martial Arts) and this is not true.



Actually, it pretty much is. Find me a Japanese art that doesn't bow on entering a class towards the kamiza, and doesn't feature a bow to it at the beginning and end of class, and you've potentially found an art that doesn't have a Shinto aspect to it. I wish you all the best in your search, by the way... 



Juany118 said:


> PS if I misinterpreted and Chris did not mean "all forms of Japanese Karate have Shinto root and no other" then I will say "my bad."



Yes, you have misinterpreted (a number of things)... I have repeatedly clarified that I have not, at any point, been discussing karate... nor have I meant or said that the arts themselves have all had Shinto roots (to the art)... many have, many have other religious forms influencing them as well (which I have also said from the beginning of my posting in this thread)... but I have been specifically discussing the example (singular) of the opening ritual of the class, which is specifically a Shinto ritual... that's it.



gpseymour said:


> I don't think knowing anything about the spell is actually necessary to effectively use the technique. It's an interesting way to understand why it is taught that way, but there's no reason it has to be taught that particular way as the art evolves, unless that's the most effective approach to the technique. If it's actually the most effective set of movements, then it's not necessary to know that it's related to casting a spell.
> 
> So, one could learn effective use of that weapon, learning the techniques as they have evolved (or not evolved), without necessarily having any connection to the original religious context.



Sure, you can do the technique without knowing the religious aspects and meaning behind it... but the point I was making there wasn't that the technique was meaningless without it, it was to show just how much of the martial art is there specifically due to the religious influences. I will say, though, that the idea of the technique "evolving" away from the actual core base of the reason for the technique in the first place is where things start to lose their identity... which is the antithesis of training in them, to my mind.



gpseymour said:


> This comes back to one of my earlier points. Is a building that was once home to a religious order (say, a small retail-front church) religious after that order moves on? Of course not. Even if it was originally built as a religious building, it does not remain so forever if it is no longer used for religious purposes. (Note: We may continue to refer to it using the original terms, like "the old monastery", but if it's now a restaurant, it's not a religious building.)



I think that can depend on the building itself (if it's built on consecrated ground, the ground remains consecrated unless it's removed, so...), but more to the point, the entire architecture of a (traditional) dojo (which doesn't have to be a specially built building, for the record) is based in religious meaning... it is, at it's heart, a religious building... and is designed for the practice of religious acts and rites... which is what martial arts are really about, in a real sense.



gpseymour said:


> You're looking at things from one angle, and I think it's a frankly overly-narrow viewpoint. If I understand you correctly, anything that was ever influenced by Shintoism that shows up in a MA gives that MA a direct link to Shintoism. I disagree with that, almost entirely. It's a philosophical statement, and is open to a large amount of personal debate, so your stance of absolutism on this seems unsupportable.



I'm not sure how you justify saying that I'm only looking at things from one angle... mainly as I'm looking at it from the perspective of Shinto, Buddhism, Japanese society and culture, both current (modern) and classical, the origins of martial methods (ryu-ha) in Japan, Western thought patterns, Western religious doctrine, cultural differences, and more... 

That said, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Shinto aspects in martial art classes are Shinto... that's it. A Shinto ritual is a Shinto ritual... I'm really not sure how much confusion that can generate... 



gpseymour said:


> Now, if I'm misreading that, you may simply be stating that there are Shinto influences from the culture.



Yes, you are misreading me. No, that's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are Shinto aspects and rituals in the arts. As well as aspects from other religious and cultural perspectives.



gpseymour said:


> I'd not argue that for a moment. Just as any MA that originated in the Southern states of the US in the last 200 years would probably have a lot of influence from Christianity, because bits of Christianity have become cultural in the area.



Most likely, yeah.



gpseymour said:


> That would not mean, however, that these hypothetical arts couldn't be separated from the religion without changing the art.



That, bluntly, is completely irrelevant. We're not talking about a completely hypothetical made up system from a completely different culture and a completely different perspective... we're talking about the Japanese arts themselves. It doesn't matter if other (hypothetical) arts can (hypothetically) be separated from their (hypothetical) religious influence... if the Japanese arts have it so intrinsically incorporated, it's not the same thing at all... and a very false equivalence. 



gpseymour said:


> The art is the physical principles (and sometimes the ethical/moral principles), and those can be taught, practiced, and performed in the complete absence of the religion (and even in the absence of understanding of it).



No, the art is expressed through physical manifestations (expressions) of the core philosophy, values, beliefs of the system itself... the techniques are the last and least of it.



gpseymour said:


> Because the building I train in does not have the purpose of studying religious ways and methods. Entirely different situation.



Is it a dojo? Even if not designed as one (as in purposely built.... it may be just a hired hall, but if it's treated as a dojo, it is one), then it is a place set aside for the study and pursuit of the Way... and, in a Classical Japanese art sense, that does mean a religious understanding and undertaking.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 16, 2017)

> Chris Parker said: ↑
> So here's the question, Steve (and Gerry... and, well, most here)... how are you agreeing that the religious act of engaging in taking communion, which can be stripped down to having a drink and a bite to eat, is something that is definitely a religious act, yet a specifically Shinto ritual, taking place in a building whose purpose is for the study of religious ways and methods, is not necessarily one just because you don't automatically conflate it with a religious ritual or location you're familiar with?





gpseymour said:


> Because the building I train in does not have the purpose of studying religious ways and methods. Entirely different situation.



I don't disagree with what you say at all.  But Chris' statement seems to go beyond that.  He subtly disrespects Christian Communion as "having a drink and a bite to eat."  Then he makes one of his leaps to I guess, try and confound people.  "... yet a specifically Shinto ritual, taking place in a building whose purpose is for the study of religious ways and methods, is not necessarily one ..." 'because we say it is not.'  In effect, trying again to say any bow or study of a martial art is from Shinto.  Yet he recently has already said a bow is used in Shinto, but is not Shinto.


> *What was the bow called before the Japanese established Shintoism as their animistic 'national' religion?
> 
> 
> I think you're getting it all backwards, there... a bow is used within Shinto, a bow is not Shinto... as far as names, different bows have different names, but really, that's fairly different...*



Can't have it both ways of course.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 16, 2017)

Once again the Chinese Martial artist interloper appears.

What I am reading here is a lot like what I have run into in Chinese marital arts when the conversation goes into Taoist/Buddhist influences and Spirituality. But one must take into account I know a whole lot more about the Chinese/Taoist/Buddhist side of things than the Japanese/Shinto side

Chris already mentioned this (exclusivity), but it needs repeating. We here in the west tend to compartmentalize things, but they do not do that in the east. Bowing, to a Kamiza is a Shinto ritual and if you bow to a kamiza you are, by definition, preforming a Shinto ritual, this however does not make you a Shintoist nor does it mean you agree or support with any part Shinto. This should be no threat to anyone's chosen religion and if it is I am of the belief that you are already on shaky ground in your chosen religion if you see this as a threat or take offence to it in any way. You are no more a practitioner of Shinto by bowing than you are a Buddhist or Taoist because you sit and meditate.

Also, for a bit more clarification. Shinto does not come from Buddhism or Taoism. It is a religion that is indigenous to Japan as is Taoism indigenous to China. Buddhism came from India and went to China and Japan but Taoism was already in China and Shinto was already in Japan when this happened. Now there many be Buddhist or Taoist influences in Shinto, that I do not know. I have not studied much Shinto, although I do find it rather intriguing and I am starting to read more about it.

OK the Chinese MA guy will get out of the way now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> They are the Koryu arts as Chris has explained repeatedly infused with Shinto and that if you take the Shinto components out of them they are then pretty much just shells.


Only if by "just shells" you mean they are just the physical techniques without the Shinto. In that case, I'm both entirely in agreement and entirely okay with that result. To me, the art is the physical techniques (and, in some cases, the ethical philosophy). That doesn't require the religion, so removing the religion doesn't take anything away that is of importance to me.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 16, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> ...
> *Koryū* (古流?, old style) and *kobudō* (古武道?, ancient martial arts[1]) are Japanese terms that are used to describe Japanese martial arts that predate the Meiji restoration (1868). The term is contrasted with Gendai budo "modern martial arts" (or shinbudo "new martial arts") which refer to schools developed after the Meiji Restoration.[2][3]
> 
> They are the Koryu arts as Chris has explained repeatedly infused with Shinto and that if you take the Shinto components out of them they are then pretty much just shells.  Chris even explained how techniques are infused with Shinto.  He of course explained it better than I.  It is hard to hear but it is exactly what it is!
> ...



You said you didn't have the time to check all the listings.  I didn't have time to check the list either, nor the inclination frankly.  But I noticed that Dai Ito-ryu Akijujutsu was the third one listed.  Even their link shows it as founded after the Meiji period.  That one caught my eye since I am a Hapkido practitioner.

The link shows Dai Ito-ryu Akijujutsu as being founded in 1890.  I spot checked a couple more and also found post Meiji foundings.

I just don't see how Chris and now you, can bring all eastern martial arts under the umbrella of Shinto.  It doesn't work that I can see.  But if you are happy in that belief, that doesn't bother me either.

Oh, probably best for another thread, but how can a martial art, stripped of Shinto, be just a shell?  Does Shinto promote physical fighting and give enough ways to do it that without Shinto there is no way of fighting left?

EDIT:  I see gpseymore already asked my last question.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 16, 2017)

Steve said:


> And, for the record, I've said several times that, while bowing itself may not be a Shinto ritual, I have no problem agreeing that bowing in a particular manner to honor specific people can be one.  I've said so multiple times.
> 
> I just don't agree with how Chris P. extends that further to suggest that without Shinto, one is left with an empty shell.
> 
> ...



No Chris is right if you specifically look at his posts and how he represents them.  Unfortunately, people are trying to apply what Chris is saying to other things that he has not said.

1.  I utilized Wikipedia there so that you would not have to scroll through the site devoted to Koryu ie. the Skoss site of www.koryu.com to glean the information from the many, many pages that would be needed. * In other words I helped you out. *

2.  In this area he is very, very credible 

3.  You have been a former mentor here Steve and you know it does not work that way. 

4.  No, but when someone is actually talking and backing up their side with truth and others are misinterpreting it and or trying to make some thing into a matter of philosophy or opinion then well....


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 16, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I just don't see how Chris and now you, can bring all eastern martial arts under the umbrella of Shinto.  It doesn't work that I can see.  But if you are happy in that belief, that doesn't bother me either.
> .



*Nobody ever said this at all*.  At least I did not we are talking in regards to Classical Japanese martial arts.  Which does not include Gendai Budo.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> That said, no, they're not "following" Shinto, they have a reasonably large amount of Shinto thought, methodology, practice, and concepts within their structure. That is not the same thing.


AH! Now I think I understand your point, Chris. This sentence seems clearer to me than your longer posts. I would agree that there's a lot of *influence* from Shinto. That aligns with what I said in a post earlier today. However, you can remove the actual religiousness without removing the philosophy that's left behind. Once can exhibit "Christian charity" without ever being a Christian. It's just part of the philosophical model behind the religion. 


Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Nobody ever said this at all*.  At least I did not we are talking in regards to Classical Japanese martial arts.  Which does not include Gendai Budo.


Actually, he explicitly said it would be suprisingly true of even NGA, which is decidedly Gendai Budo (founded in the early 1940's).


----------



## Buka (Feb 16, 2017)

Having a nice cup of coffee, reading this thread.

Fascinating read. What a great way to start a day.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> The bow is done towards the kamiza/shinzen/shomen... and is, quite literally, a way of announcing yourself to the kami in the dojo itself... asking permission to enter, asking them to look over your training there. The bow on the way out is thanking them, and taking your leave of them again. This is why you bow even if you're the only one in the dojo... it is Shinto


This is where we have a disagreement. It was originally (and still is, among those who observe Shinto) exactly what you say here. However, for those who were taught to bow to the training space (or even the shrine area) as a show of respect and a moment to clear their mind, it has never been about invoking the kami. In my current space(s), I don't even have a facsimile of a shrine (in my prior space, I only had the scrolls). I bow, as I always have, to the training space.


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> No Chris is right if you specifically look at his posts and how he represents them.  Unfortunately, people are trying to apply what Chris is saying to other things that he has not said.
> 
> 1.  I utilized Wikipedia there so that you would not have to scroll through the site devoted to Koryu ie. the Skoss site of www.koryu.com to glean the information from the many, many pages that would be needed. * In other words I helped you out. *
> 
> ...


Brian, I will freely admit that it's possible I have misunderstood your posts.  I will go back and reread them and really try to understand where you are coming from.  Do you think it's possible that you are not fully understanding the posts of the MANY people in this thread, some of whom do have an understanding of koryu, some of whom have a strong background in philosophy and religion, and some who have knowledge similar in nature to your own and to Chris'? 

See, this is where I get a little frustrated.  Sure, it's possible I don't get it.  But... and this is the part that seems never to be explored.  It's possible that Chris doesn't quite get it.  It's possible that you, in your zeal to endorse him, also don't quite get it.  I think this is a fair possibility, because you guys keep saying things that are generally agreed upon, as though they are the main points of contention.  Not just my posts.  Several posters here, many of whom are well respected as being sensible, reasonable guys (as opposed to crotchety, like me).  

No one doubts that Chris is has an encyclopedic knowledge in certain areas.  But where facts stray into interpretations and into opinions, or where areas of expertise overlap, things get a little gray.  And remember, this became a debate about Shinto and koryu because Chris made it so, way back in post 109. From your perspective, I get it.  Chris is sanctioned as the koryu expert on MT and all that.  Fine.   But what you and Chris seem to be missing is that for many here, this isn't a discussion about whether the act of bowing to a picture is a Shinto ritual.  Rather, it's a discussion about whether that is important to actually training in a martial art.  Is Christian Karate a koryu art?  LOL.  No.  Of course not.  So, then, does the Shinto rituals which persist matter in any meaningful way to the training? 

And as a moderator, if you don't see how damaging it is to a discussion when a moderator jumps in and tells everyone in the thread that we need to stand down, that Chris Parker is an absolute authority laying down truth ("truth" is a very telling choice of words), and saying directly that Chris Parker is saying... how did you say it?  "exactly what everyone needs to hear but probably doesn't want to acknowledge. I see people trying to work around and that is okay. However, justify it as you want but it still is exactly what it is!"  It's so wrong on so many levels, I still just don't quite know how to react.  But I do understand better now why Chris is condoned, and am more glad than ever that I asked to step down as a mentor.  Truly, if you don't see that, then it is you, my friend, who doesn't get it. 

Honestly, Chris chases off new posters and we laugh.  "Haha...  that guy or gal probably won't be back.  Hehe. That's just Chris being Chris." 

Chris derails threads by steering discussions into his areas of expertise, crossing frequently from fact to opinion and then lecturing anyone who has the temerity to have a different opinion .  "Haha.  That's just Chris being Chris.  You may not like him or his opinions, but hey, he didn't mess up the facts!"   

Consider the above strictly my own opinions.  I don't want to imply that others feel the same way.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 16, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Now most of the people training here and posting here are not in a Japanese classical system or Koryu.  So, if you are in a modern system of Japan or Gendai Budo or Shinbudo or *your system is even further removed* from that or if you are practicing a form of Okinawan Karate what do you care????  *It doesn't really effect you at all!*



I did say Karate and actually made the point earlier that karate was largely Okinawan in origin.  That said I mentioned that because, I believe (and if wrong mae culpa) Chris had referred to Karate and Shinto in the same breath as well.

With all that said the Aikido I studied I think directly relates to this conversation.  While Ueshiba Sensei was a member of the neo-Shinto Omotokyo sect (which has a lot of distinct connections to Buddhism) and that his belief in it's core concept of harmony could not be made to reconcile with Daito-ryu, Gozo Shioda Sensei (the founder of the Yoshinkan Aikido I studied) explicitly removed the religious elements of Aikido while maintaining the generic "spiritual" aspects.  As a matter of fact I once read someone half jokingly refer to those of us who practice Yoshinkan Aikido as "_Evil Aikidoka_."

We still bowed, meditated etc but these traditions are not unique to Shinto and the idea of harmony, which is where the idea of "doing no harm" to someone trying to hurt you, was gone.

Now maybe this has colored my opinion on the issue but I look to this and see the evolution above as an example of how faith can flow into and then out of a martial art.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> AH! Now I think I understand your point, Chris. This sentence seems clearer to me than your longer posts. I would agree that there's a lot of *influence* from Shinto. That aligns with what I said in a post earlier today. However, you can remove the actual religiousness without removing the philosophy that's left behind. Once can exhibit "Christian charity" without ever being a Christian. It's just part of the philosophical model behind the religion.



This largely lines up with my thought as well.  You can have origins in a faith or philosophy BUT have the "religiousness" or practiced removed.  

I would still argue that Japan is diverse however in what those influences are however.  I would never deny that Shinto may lie at the majority of TJMAs btw, I would only argue its not the ONLY one.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 16, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Being blunt is okay... it just might help more if you were right.
> 
> Confucianism played a big part in the formulation of the social structure of early Japan, most notably in the formation of Heian courts, which (in their way) were instrumental in the formulation of what would later be known as the samurai class... additionally, both Shinto and Buddhism were large influences on pretty much all of Japanese life... particularly once Buddhism was introduced to Japan in around the mid 6th Century, which started the formalisation of Shinto... however, while both used bowing as part of their expressions of their religious rites and rituals (more so in Shinto than Buddhism, but obviously present in both), the whole idea of "there are bows, therefore it is x-religion" is not the point I have made at any stage. my point has been specifically about the particular bowing methods used.
> 
> For interests sake, though, can you identify any Classical Japanese arts that have their bowing originating in Zen Buddhism...?



The last part isn't actually the point I am trying to make.  The point I am trying to make is that it is a melange of influences that contributed to many martial arts.  Here is a good article that calls out the my of "zen" origins BUT notes that Daoist, Shinto, Buddhist and Confucian influences were so interwoven that it is essentially impossible to say what, if any religion/philosophy had a singular influence.

Religion and Spiritual Development: Japan (Martial Arts)


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 16, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Now most of the people training here and posting here are not in a Japanese classical system or Koryu.  So, if you are in a modern system of Japan or Gendai Budo or Shinbudo or *your system is even further removed* from that or if you are practicing a form of Okinawan Karate what do you care????  *It doesn't really effect you at all!*



I fail to see how it doesn't effect me at all.  My system is a modern system of Japan (actually, founded in NYC in 1976 by a Japanese born and raised individual).

Our resident expert stated that our opening and closing of class are basically Shinto rituals.  The resident expert attempted to educate me on the meaning behind the name of the system, implying (correctly) it has eastern religious roots.

So if I'm partaking in a Shinto ritual in an organization that was founded on eastern religious principles (as Chris implied), how does it not effect me?  Shouldn't I care?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 16, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I did say Karate and actually made the point earlier that karate was largely Okinawan in origin.  That said I mentioned that because, I believe (and if wrong mae culpa) Chris had referred to Karate and Shinto in the same breath as well.



I do not believe he referred to it this way.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 16, 2017)

@Chris Parker 

I never said removing shoes was part of self defense.  Quite the opposite, actually.  I said if I were to eliminate a CULTURAL aspect of training, it would be eliminating training barefoot.  Then I gave examples of why training with shoes on would outweigh the CULTURAL aspect of training barefoot.

As far as misspelling mokuso twice, I post from an iPhone.  It constantly changes things for me, starts new words and sentences, etc.  I catch most of them, but some slip through the cracks.  Thanks for at least acknowledging I understand the concept of it though, regardless of how I (mis)spelled it and how often.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I fail to see how it doesn't effect me at all.  My system is a modern system of Japan (actually, founded in NYC in 1976 by a Japanese born and raised individual).
> 
> Our resident expert stated that our opening and closing of class are basically Shinto rituals.  The resident expert attempted to educate me on the meaning behind the name of the system, implying (correctly) it has eastern religious roots.
> 
> So if I'm partaking in a Shinto ritual in an organization that was founded on eastern religious principles (as Chris implied), how does it not effect me?  Shouldn't I care?


*
You train in Seido a modern system?*  I don't know the rituals of your system.  So I frankly can't help you.  If there are Shinto rituals within your system then you will have to figure out a way to coexist.  I doubt though that Shinto pervades your system like it would the classical systems of Japan.  Though, some modern systems founders particularly those founded in the west some times go over board to appear more like what they perceive a Japanese system would be like.  I am not saying that Seido is anything like that as I frankly do not know.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 16, 2017)

Steve said:


> Brian, I will freely admit that it's possible I have misunderstood your posts.  I will go back and reread them and really try to understand where you are coming from.  Do you think it's possible that you are not fully understanding the posts of the MANY people in this thread, some of whom do have an understanding of koryu, some of whom have a strong background in philosophy and religion, and some who have knowledge similar in nature to your own and to Chris'?
> 
> See, this is where I get a little frustrated.  Sure, it's possible I don't get it.  But... and this is the part that seems never to be explored.  It's possible that Chris doesn't quite get it.  It's possible that you, in your zeal to endorse him, also don't quite get it.  I think this is a fair possibility, because you guys keep saying things that are generally agreed upon, as though they are the main points of contention.  Not just my posts.  Several posters here, many of whom are well respected as being sensible, reasonable guys (as opposed to crotchety, like me).
> 
> ...



*Zeal Steve really?*  Chris states a fact and people are upset over it but it is still a truth.  However, people can figure out how to deal with it and or rationalize it any way they want in regards to the classical martial arts of Japan. 

Steve it is like you are arguing just to argue?  Is this the case?


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Zeal Steve really?*  Chris states a fact and people are upset over it but it is still a truth.  However, people can figure out how to deal with it and or rationalize it any way they want in regards to the classical martial arts of Japan.
> 
> Steve it is like you are arguing just to argue?  Is this the case?


Once again, Brian, if you're still referring to facts, then I really don't think you understand or have carefully read anyone's posts. 

I don't even know what to say about the loaded questions above.  That's pretty dishonest of you.  No, I'm not arguing just to argue, and if you believe that to be true, I really don't think you understand or have carefully read my posts. 

And yeah, zeal.  Underlining and bolding things imparts a certain... emphasis.  Also, some of the words you choose, such as "truth", along with the message, which seems to be, "If you don't agree with Chris Parker and accept everything he says as truth, you just aren't ready to accept it."   That kind of blanket endorsement is zeal.   If your intent isn't to communicate zeal, you're doing it wrong.  If you think that Chris is correct in everything he says, and that his every opinion should be accepted at face value, then I really don't believe you understand or have carefully read Chris Parker's posts.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 16, 2017)

*Steve, that is just ridiculous...  *


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> 3. You have been a former mentor here Steve and you know it does not work that way.



Yes it really does work that way.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Religious rituals can, and do, change... however, performing a Shinto ritual, including bowing, is performing a Shinto ritual... bowing, by itself, is not one... but a Shinto ritual often does involve bowing. Conflating the two is where many seem to be going wrong here.



Until it isn't. Because religious rituals can change. 

Christianity has a history of adopting other cultural rituals and making them Christian. Christmas is a precedent of that. 

So there needs to be a different demarcation than it was once a shinto ritual. Or evolved from a shinto ritual. 

Especially when shinto may also have adopted that ritual from another religion.


----------



## Tames D (Feb 16, 2017)

@ Steve:  I understand  your frustrations with a certain poster. I have/had the same frustrations, so I know where you are coming from. You and I are on the same page for the most part. But I just want to say, as a former Moderator, having been a part of the inner workings in the "back room", I think you are wrong about Brian. There are things that the Mentors and the general population just don't see and understand.


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2017)

Tames D said:


> @ Steve:  I understand  your frustrations with a certain poster. I have/had the same frustrations, so I know where you are coming from. You and I are on the same page for the most part. But I just want to say, as a former Moderator, having been a part of the inner workings in the "back room", I think you are wrong about Brian. There are things that the Mentors and the general population just don't see and understand.


Given Brian's suggestion that I'm arguing just to argue, I can well imagine the tenor of the discussion.   forgive me if I'm skeptical.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 16, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *You train in Seido a modern system?*  I don't know the rituals of your system.  So I frankly can't help you.  If there are Shinto rituals within your system then you will have to figure out a way to coexist.  I doubt though that Shinto pervades your system like it would the classical systems of Japan.  Though, some modern systems founders particularly those founded in the west some times go over board to appear more like what they perceive a Japanese system would be like.  I am not saying that Seido is anything like that as I frankly do not know.



Are you asking if Seido is a modern system?  If so, IMO my answer is yes it is.  The World Seido Karate Organization, aka Seido Juku, aka Seido Karate, was founded in 1976 by Tadashi Nakamura in NYC.  Prior to that, Nakamura was the North American head of Kyokushin.  Prior to that, he was the chief instructor at Kyokushinkaikan Honbu in Tokyo.  I say it's too new and evolved enough to not be put into the older gendai systems. By the older gendai systems of karate, I mean those that were founded/named around the time karate was officially recognized by Japan - Funakoshi's Shotokan, Miyagi's Goju, Uechi Ryu (although Uechi stopped teaching and then resumed later on), etc.  I kind of put Kyokushin at the beginning of the modern karate - Oyama heavily reworked a lot of the old kata such as Kanku, Gojushiho (and renamed it Sushiho in Kyokushin), and some others.  He added kata such as Tsuki No Kata that came from one of Miyagi's students, which isn't very old.  Nakamura made some additional changes in curriculum and methods.  But I guess it's truly gendai if the only distinction is koryu or gendai. But that's another topic altogether.

As far as Shinto ritual, Chris Parker responded this way when I stated the opening and closing of class protocol in Seido...

"Yep, well... it's adapted, but it's certainly showing all the hallmarks of Shinto, so... yeah. It is."

Nakamura was born and raised in Japan.  He was sent here by Mas Oyama to bring Kyokushin to North America, so it's not like he's someone who doesn't know Japanese culture/traditions/etc. and making things up as he goes to make his organization look Japanese.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 19, 2017)

Okay...



Steve said:


> And, for the record, I've said several times that, while bowing itself may not be a Shinto ritual, I have no problem agreeing that bowing in a particular manner to honor specific people can be one.  I've said so multiple times.



Yet you continue to argue...?



Steve said:


> I just don't agree with how Chris P. extends that further to suggest that without Shinto, one is left with an empty shell.



For the arts I'm talking about, yes. I've even shown precisely how far this extends, to the very structure and form of physical techniques themselves, as you were unable to follow... I'm not sure how much more information you need at this point.



Steve said:


> This all kind of reminds me of the story of how we ended up with $.99 and .95 pricing.   We tend to think itstarted out as a a psychology thing, but it was really a practical issue of keeping employees from skimming the till.  Does knowing that change the practice?  No, but it's interesting.



Er... huh? No, it's not really the same thing... on a number of levels.   



Steve said:


> So, your position boils down to a couple things.



Not wanting to speak for Brian, but I do want to address your views here a bit... 



Steve said:


> 1:  You believe chris' post is historically accurate, and it jives with Wikipedia.



No, Brian believes my posts are accurate because, unlike you, he has some knowledge in this area, and what I'm saying is in line with his education.



Steve said:


> 2:  you believe he is more creidible than others who seem to know what they're talking about, as well.   I don't know that juany is less credible than Chris, for example.



Then you simply don't know the subject or area, Steve. Same as with the thread on "Need a new Iaito"... your lack of knowledge in the area, and your lack of ability (or willingness) to discern the levels of differing viewpoints are leading you to argue when you frankly have no place to. This is no slight on Juany, and I'm not saying anything about his art, as I've been specifically addressing the idea of bowing as part of the opening (and closing) ritual in Japanese martial arts... and, in this area, his Wing Chun doesn't have a lot of relevance when it comes to expertise in this field...



Steve said:


> 3:  MT endorses Chris as a mentor, and the moderation staff will back him up when needed.



I'm not about to go into any backroom politics, but that has never been the case that I've seen... in fact, quite the opposite. Your sour grapes, on the other hand, not always being catered to, is not the same thing...



Steve said:


> 4:  if one don't train in a Koryu art, you are suggesting that a person should just accept whatever Chris says as correct, even if it is an opinion or a matter of philosophy.



When it comes to matters of Koryu, Classical Japanese martial arts, and related, yes. Unless you're suggesting that someone who has never trained in BJJ, grappling in any form, MMA, or anything similar shouldn't listen to you, based on your knowledge and experience in BJJ, as you're likely to be ill-informed?

Seriously, Steve, if my posts are based in my decades now of training in Japanese arts, my decades of study and research, and they match the views and understanding of other practitioners of similar things, and the knowledge of others who are educated in a similar area, then maybe, just maybe, you take on board that yes, I do know what I'm talking about... and your constant questioning of my credibility, based on absolutely nothing other than a chip on your shoulder, is really getting old.



Steve said:


> As I said before, this is genuinely disappointing.



Then you'll just have to get over it.



oftheherd1 said:


> I don't disagree with what you say at all.  But Chris' statement seems to go beyond that.  He subtly disrespects Christian Communion as "having a drink and a bite to eat."  Then he makes one of his leaps to I guess, try and confound people.  "... yet a specifically Shinto ritual, taking place in a building whose purpose is for the study of religious ways and methods, is not necessarily one ..." 'because we say it is not.'  In effect, trying again to say any bow or study of a martial art is from Shinto.  Yet he recently has already said a bow is used in Shinto, but is not Shinto.



For one thing, there was no "subtle disrespect", anymore than your (and others') constant dismissal of the Shinto aspect as "just bowing"... what I was saying was that, if you're going to reduce what is genuinely a Shinto (religious) ritual to a single physical expression or component, that could be done with Christian ones as well... and to point out that those physical actions, while intrinsic to the ritual itself, they do not make the ritual by themselves... anymore than simply having a drink and a bite to eat is the same as taking communion.

Next, no, at no point have I said that any bow or study of a martial art is from Shinto... for crying out loud, my very first post in this thread stated explicitly that I was dealing specifically with the bow associated with the opening ceremony of a Japanese martial art... what I have said, in very simple terms, is that the religious ritual engaged in at the beginning and end of many Japanese art classes is a religious ritual, whether addressed as such or not... and that anyone who was concerned about being made to take part in religious actions outside of their own faith should be aware of it.

Seriously, that's it. 



oftheherd1 said:


> Can't have it both ways of course.



I'm not having it both ways. You've all managed to ignore what I've said, instead applying your own assumptions based on a lack of understanding. I recommend going back over my posts and confirming this.



gpseymour said:


> Only if by "just shells" you mean they are just the physical techniques without the Shinto. In that case, I'm both entirely in agreement and entirely okay with that result. To me, the art is the physical techniques (and, in some cases, the ethical philosophy). That doesn't require the religion, so removing the religion doesn't take anything away that is of importance to me.



No, that's not what I mean. I mean that much of the art is dependent upon the religious underpinnings (when dealing with Classical Japanese arts, at the least... and to a degree with modern ones as well, particularly those based in the older forms).

Without the religious underpinnings, many arts lose their historical values (not value... a bit different), their tactical thinking and methodology, the structure of their techniques and teachings, their naming conventions and terminology, the structure of the organisation and far more. If you can imagine what a martial art is like without all that, then you can understand what I mean when I say it's "just a shell".



oftheherd1 said:


> You said you didn't have the time to check all the listings.  I didn't have time to check the list either, nor the inclination frankly.  But I noticed that Dai Ito-ryu Akijujutsu was the third one listed.  Even their link shows it as founded after the Meiji period.  That one caught my eye since I am a Hapkido practitioner.
> 
> The link shows Dai Ito-ryu Akijujutsu as being founded in 1890.  I spot checked a couple more and also found post Meiji foundings.



The questions of Daito Ryu's origins and foundings, really aren't that relevant here... unless you're going to say that post Meiji arts don't have such religious underpinnings...?



oftheherd1 said:


> I just don't see how Chris and now you, can bring all eastern martial arts under the umbrella of Shinto.  It doesn't work that I can see.  But if you are happy in that belief, that doesn't bother me either.



For crying out loud, no, that's not what I've said. I have simply said that the Shinto ritual found in many, indeed most Japanese martial arts is a Shinto ritual... seriously, you're all missing what's being said in favour of your assumptions. Go back and read.



oftheherd1 said:


> Oh, probably best for another thread, but how can a martial art, stripped of Shinto, be just a shell?  Does Shinto promote physical fighting and give enough ways to do it that without Shinto there is no way of fighting left?
> 
> EDIT:  I see gpseymore already asked my last question.



It depends on the art, but an art that already has such underpinnings is entirely informed by them... how could it not be just a shell?



gpseymour said:


> AH! Now I think I understand your point, Chris. This sentence seems clearer to me than your longer posts. I would agree that there's a lot of *influence* from Shinto. That aligns with what I said in a post earlier today. However, you can remove the actual religiousness without removing the philosophy that's left behind. Once can exhibit "Christian charity" without ever being a Christian. It's just part of the philosophical model behind the religion.



No, that's not what I was saying... you need to get out of the idea of singular religious influences/expressions... the Shinto aspects are one (important) influence on the Japanese arts, they are a very real part of the arts that they are a part of... you can't just remove the religious aspects of religious arts and not remove the whole thing. I'd also argue that the religious philosophy is the whole point of the religious expression... and that no, you can't exhibit "Christian charity" if you're not a Christian... it may be seen as similar by a Christian, but frankly, no, it's not the same thing... on a number of levels. It's intent is different... as is it's source ideology... regardless of how similar the behaviour might be seen to be.



gpseymour said:


> Actually, he explicitly said it would be suprisingly true of even NGA, which is decidedly Gendai Budo (founded in the early 1940's).



Yep. And other Gendai arts, for the record...it's just far more explicit in the older ones (Koryu)...



gpseymour said:


> This is where we have a disagreement. It was originally (and still is, among those who observe Shinto) exactly what you say here. However, for those who were taught to bow to the training space (or even the shrine area) as a show of respect and a moment to clear their mind, it has never been about invoking the kami. In my current space(s), I don't even have a facsimile of a shrine (in my prior space, I only had the scrolls). I bow, as I always have, to the training space.



I get the view, really, I do... but, regardless of anything else, bowing to the space (directed towards the shomen... and, if you don't, then it hasn't been transmitted properly) is bowing to the kami... yes, there's the idea of clearing your mind, preparing you for the training, leaving the outside world behind... but, at it's heart, it's really about announcing yourself to the spirits of the dojo... whether there is a physical kamidana, shomen scroll, or anything else or not.



Steve said:


> Brian, I will freely admit that it's possible I have misunderstood your posts.  I will go back and reread them and really try to understand where you are coming from.  Do you think it's possible that you are not fully understanding the posts of the MANY people in this thread, some of whom do have an understanding of koryu, some of whom have a strong background in philosophy and religion, and some who have knowledge similar in nature to your own and to Chris'?



While I agree that misunderstanding can go both ways, can you identify anyone in the thread who has an understanding of these old arts, and has disagreed with my, and Brian's, comments?



Steve said:


> See, this is where I get a little frustrated.  Sure, it's possible I don't get it.  But... and this is the part that seems never to be explored.  It's possible that Chris doesn't quite get it.  It's possible that you, in your zeal to endorse him, also don't quite get it.  I think this is a fair possibility, because you guys keep saying things that are generally agreed upon, as though they are the main points of contention.  Not just my posts.  Several posters here, many of whom are well respected as being sensible, reasonable guys (as opposed to crotchety, like me).



Examples of these agreed upon things that are said as if points of contention?



Steve said:


> No one doubts that Chris is has an encyclopedic knowledge in certain areas.  But where facts stray into interpretations and into opinions, or where areas of expertise overlap, things get a little gray.



Which is why I don't get into opinions in these areas.



Steve said:


> And remember, this became a debate about Shinto and koryu because Chris made it so, way back in post 109.



Not quite, no... I was seeing the posts of many members who couldn't come to an understanding of why some may see the bowing as a religious act, and therefore couldn't understand why some were objecting to it... or why someone like Paul was saying that he would show someone out if they were concerned about such things. So I was offering some insight into exactly what the reasons were... which seems to have been misunderstood and misinterpreted in the main.



Steve said:


> From your perspective, I get it.  Chris is sanctioned as the koryu expert on MT and all that.  Fine.



No, I'm really not.



Steve said:


> But what you and Chris seem to be missing is that for many here, this isn't a discussion about whether the act of bowing to a picture is a Shinto ritual.  Rather, it's a discussion about whether that is important to actually training in a martial art.  Is Christian Karate a koryu art?  LOL.  No.  Of course not.  So, then, does the Shinto rituals which persist matter in any meaningful way to the training?



Huh? No, that's not the discussion... again, my points have been specific... and stated in my very first post here (that I wasn't dealing with the Christianity aspects, that I wasn't dealing with karate, and so on, that you're seeming to see in my words)... instead, my point is about the religious aspects that are already present in various arts, most in particular the Japanese ones, when it comes to customs such as bowing to the kamidana at the beginning of the class.

Really, go back and re-read it again.



Steve said:


> And as a moderator, if you don't see how damaging it is to a discussion when a moderator jumps in and tells everyone in the thread that we need to stand down, that Chris Parker is an absolute authority laying down truth ("truth" is a very telling choice of words), and saying directly that Chris Parker is saying... how did you say it?  "exactly what everyone needs to hear but probably doesn't want to acknowledge. I see people trying to work around and that is okay. However, justify it as you want but it still is exactly what it is!"  It's so wrong on so many levels, I still just don't quite know how to react.  But I do understand better now why Chris is condoned, and am more glad than ever that I asked to step down as a mentor.  Truly, if you don't see that, then it is you, my friend, who doesn't get it.



Of course, it's more constructive if you continue to argue the same damn point over and over again, ignoring everything that you get told, until a thread gets locked, yeah?



Steve said:


> Honestly, Chris chases off new posters and we laugh.  "Haha...  that guy or gal probably won't be back.  Hehe. That's just Chris being Chris."
> 
> Chris derails threads by steering discussions into his areas of expertise, crossing frequently from fact to opinion and then lecturing anyone who has the temerity to have a different opinion .  "Haha.  That's just Chris being Chris.  You may not like him or his opinions, but hey, he didn't mess up the facts!"



I rarely offer opinion, Steve. Most of the time I do, it's to do with my personal feelings on a particular technique/system/instructor, and there I point out what my opinion is, and often why their approach is in contrast to my own... that you read opinions into my comments when I'm dealing with facts is not my failing.   



Steve said:


> Consider the above strictly my own opinions.  I don't want to imply that others feel the same way.



Sure.



Juany118 said:


> I did say Karate and actually made the point earlier that karate was largely Okinawan in origin.  That said I mentioned that because, I believe (and if wrong mae culpa) Chris had referred to Karate and Shinto in the same breath as well.



Yeah, no... not something I'd said. Only when Steve insisted that that was what I was talking about did I say it could cross over into karate, but was explicit in saying that no, I was not talking about karate in particular or specifically... in fact, I went out of my way to say that that is not what I was saying. A couple of times, in fact.



Juany118 said:


> With all that said the Aikido I studied I think directly relates to this conversation.  While Ueshiba Sensei was a member of the neo-Shinto Omotokyo sect (which has a lot of distinct connections to Buddhism) and that his belief in it's core concept of harmony could not be made to reconcile with Daito-ryu, Gozo Shioda Sensei (the founder of the Yoshinkan Aikido I studied) explicitly removed the religious elements of Aikido while maintaining the generic "spiritual" aspects.  As a matter of fact I once read someone half jokingly refer to those of us who practice Yoshinkan Aikido as "_Evil Aikidoka_."
> 
> We still bowed, meditated etc but these traditions are not unique to Shinto and the idea of harmony, which is where the idea of "doing no harm" to someone trying to hurt you, was gone.
> 
> Now maybe this has colored my opinion on the issue but I look to this and see the evolution above as an example of how faith can flow into and then out of a martial art.



Yeah... the religious aspects simply aren't removed, even in Yoshinkan Aikido... the Omoto-kyo aspects and influence, to a great degree, yes... but not the other, underlying aspects. It was simply de-emphasised. But, more importantly, you really, really can't look at these ideas and aspects with a Western sensibility... it'll never make sense that way.



Juany118 said:


> This largely lines up with my thought as well.  You can have origins in a faith or philosophy BUT have the "religiousness" or practiced removed.



Sure. But what I'm saying is that it is not removed. Because, well, it isn't. It is, however, largely de-emphasised, or less explicitly expressed... but the practice is still there.  



Juany118 said:


> I would still argue that Japan is diverse however in what those influences are however.  I would never deny that Shinto may lie at the majority of TJMAs btw, I would only argue its not the ONLY one.



And I never said it was the only one... just that it is the heart of many of the rituals found in a dojo... I've also pointed out the Buddhist influences, even in the very building used, from the beginning.



Juany118 said:


> The last part isn't actually the point I am trying to make.  The point I am trying to make is that it is a melange of influences that contributed to many martial arts.  Here is a good article that calls out the my of "zen" origins BUT notes that Daoist, Shinto, Buddhist and Confucian influences were so interwoven that it is essentially impossible to say what, if any religion/philosophy had a singular influence.
> 
> Religion and Spiritual Development: Japan (Martial Arts)



I like that article... but really, it's just saying many of the same things I've been stating... such as the problems in seeing Japanese religious concepts from a Western perspective... the cross-over in all areas of Japanese life... as well as much of the article not having much to do with anything other than the development and recent history of martial arts methodologies in Japan, separate from the religious concepts we're discussing here.



JR 137 said:


> I fail to see how it doesn't effect me at all.  My system is a modern system of Japan (actually, founded in NYC in 1976 by a Japanese born and raised individual).
> 
> Our resident expert stated that our opening and closing of class are basically Shinto rituals.  The resident expert attempted to educate me on the meaning behind the name of the system, implying (correctly) it has eastern religious roots.
> 
> So if I'm partaking in a Shinto ritual in an organization that was founded on eastern religious principles (as Chris implied), how does it not effect me?  Shouldn't I care?



It affects you if it affects you, really. If you are a practicing Christian, and of the belief that you cannot partake in any other religious activities, then it should certainly affect you... if you aren't, or you are less concerned about such separation, and can happily compartmentalise these ideas, then you're fine. All I've been saying is that, if such concerns are yours, it may be helpful to know what you're actually doing.



JR 137 said:


> @Chris Parker
> 
> I never said removing shoes was part of self defense.  Quite the opposite, actually.  I said if I were to eliminate a CULTURAL aspect of training, it would be eliminating training barefoot.  Then I gave examples of why training with shoes on would outweigh the CULTURAL aspect of training barefoot.



Yeah... and I was saying "you think these arts are about self defence?"



JR 137 said:


> As far as misspelling mokuso twice, I post from an iPhone.  It constantly changes things for me, starts new words and sentences, etc.  I catch most of them, but some slip through the cracks.  Thanks for at least acknowledging I understand the concept of it though, regardless of how I (mis)spelled it and how often.



Okay, thanks for that. Perfectly understandable.



drop bear said:


> Until it isn't. Because religious rituals can change.



Except it has never stopped being one... so no, it's not "until it isn't", as it still is.



drop bear said:


> Christianity has a history of adopting other cultural rituals and making them Christian. Christmas is a precedent of that.



So?



drop bear said:


> So there needs to be a different demarcation than it was once a shinto ritual. Or evolved from a shinto ritual.



It is a Shinto ritual. It has not evolved from one... it is not something that "once was a Shinto ritual", it is a Shinto ritual. That's the point.



drop bear said:


> Especially when shinto may also have adopted that ritual from another religion.



What? Do you even know what you're talking about?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 19, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> No, that's not what I mean. I mean that much of the art is dependent upon the religious underpinnings (when dealing with Classical Japanese arts, at the least... and to a degree with modern ones as well, particularly those based in the older forms).
> 
> Without the religious underpinnings, many arts lose their historical values (not value... a bit different), their tactical thinking and methodology, the structure of their techniques and teachings, their naming conventions and terminology, the structure of the organisation and far more. If you can imagine what a martial art is like without all that, then you can understand what I mean when I say it's "just a shell".


I think, again, we're dealing with a difference in what "religious underpinnings means". If you mean the origin, then sure. If you mean the actual religious practice (as in understanding Shinto to understand an art, assuming said art has significant Shinto influence), then I'll disagree. The strategy may be influenced by Shinto, but the strategy can be understood without Shinto.

Of course, then we come to the issue of evolution within an art. If the strategy and tactics have evolved from their origin (without that evolution being driven by Shinto philosophy), then would Shinto even necessarily be useful in helping understand the current strategy (as opposed to understanding the historical progression)? I'd say there's a chance that focusing on understanding Shinto could drag the strategic/tactical understanding back toward its origins, which would undo that evolution, removing elements that better fit the current usage.

Mind you, if we're talking about understanding how an art got to where it is, there's little argument that understanding Shinto would enhance that pursuit. Perhaps this is part of our difference on this? You have a koryu focus, so I would think the background of an art is more important to you, to the way you study it.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think, again, we're dealing with a difference in what "religious underpinnings means". If you mean the origin, then sure. If you mean the actual religious practice (as in understanding Shinto to understand an art, assuming said art has significant Shinto influence), then I'll disagree. The strategy may be influenced by Shinto, but the strategy can be understood without Shinto.
> 
> Of course, then we come to the issue of evolution within an art. If the strategy and tactics have evolved from their origin (without that evolution being driven by Shinto philosophy), then would Shinto even necessarily be useful in helping understand the current strategy (as opposed to understanding the historical progression)? I'd say there's a chance that focusing on understanding Shinto could drag the strategic/tactical understanding back toward its origins, which would undo that evolution, removing elements that better fit the current usage.
> 
> Mind you, if we're talking about understanding how an art got to where it is, there's little argument that understanding Shinto would enhance that pursuit. Perhaps this is part of our difference on this? You have a koryu focus, so I would think the background of an art is more important to you, to the way you study it.


Chris is not at all interested in having a conversation or understanding your perspective,  The sooner you understand that from his perspective, he is the professor and you are the student, the more his posts make sense,     Chris doesn't discuss things.  He lectures.  He imparts truth, and if you disagree, he presumes you must not understand him.  

I predict Brian will let us all know that Chris' perspective is the endorsed MT perspective shortly.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2017)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chris, it's a shame in that iaido thread that you never took the time to understand what I repeatedly said in that thread.   It is a good example of how you approach threads, and epitomizes how just about every time you post, you either derail the thread so that it eventually gets locked or you drive a new poster away.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 19, 2017)

Thread locked pending staff review

jks9199
Administrator


----------

