# "Christian Martial Arts"



## Andrew Green (Mar 13, 2006)

> Achorus of "Yes, sir" echoes through the First Baptist Church in Osceola, Wis., every Thursday evening at exactly 6:15. That is when the Rev. Dr. Kent Haralson calls the Master's Warriors to order. Congregating before their sensei, the members start the weekly Seigi Bushido Ryu training with an opening prayer. Throughout the two-hour session, in addition to sparring, punching and falling, the class will also have Bible study and closing prayers. This is karate with a Christian kick.



Ok, I've seen Christian flavored martial arts before, claiming it's original intent was Christian God-centered seems a little bit of a stretch, how do they get that when they are doing Karate?



> Referring to Old Testament passages and listing Adam, Abraham and Jacob among the first martial artists, Conway argues that martial arts or "military arts" originated in Mesopotamia during biblical times and can be traced throughout history along the trade routes right into Okinawa, Japan. For Christian martial artists, this rationale bolsters their belief that their craft complements their Christian roots. After all, martial arts, as chronicled by Conway and his colleagues, have Christian roots themselves.



This part is new to me, I don't think I have ever seen it claimed that Karate was founded by Adam...?

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060311/NEWS/603110317/1021


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 13, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Ok, I've seen Christian flavored martial arts before, claiming it's original intent was Christian God-centered seems a little bit of a stretch, how do they get that when they are doing Karate?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What they apparently fail to realize is that EVERY culture throughout human history has had its fighting techniques, because people have fought with each other, and against wild animals, for as long as humans have walked the earth.  Fighting arts in general cannot be traced to any specific culture or region or era.  They were and are everywhere.


----------



## beau_safken (Mar 13, 2006)

Its that a massive contridiction...  I mean I'm not a bible beater, but doesn't it say in the bible to not do harm on to others?  Especially mixing combative energies with religion again...  I'm gonna call a big "what an idiotic idea" card.  Thats kinda like a shinto sect adopting western boxing as a means of conveying their love for their gods.  Seriously...I feel for you karate guys...I would be pretty destroyed if my art was used for these kinds of things...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 13, 2006)

Prior to reading the article my thought was "big deal so a minister is teaching Martial arts and teaching religion" 

After reading the article I can say only 2 things.

1) Brings a whole new meaning to turn the other cheek 

2) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGH!!!! Martial Arts were not based on RELIGION

You can count on another comment from me on this once I calm down, sorry about the yelling.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 13, 2006)

yeah, it's actually pretty creepy.  Notice the photo that accompanies the article.  two people practicing with Jo staffs, one attacks and the other defends with a block.  They point out that the two staffs now make a cross. 

i feel violated.  I need to take a shower.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 13, 2006)

what i find odd is there are two  'christian' martial arts school here in the portland, oregon area.  i've found their public behavior to be among the worst of the studios 'round here.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 13, 2006)

sorry, three.  and i should state for the record that koinonia kenpo is right on.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 13, 2006)

Beware the power of stupid people in large groups.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 13, 2006)

I have no problem with people and their religion, until they attempt to force their religion onto other people and judge others based on the fact that these others are not members of the same religion.  I also object to using religion to twist the meaning, or create a meaning that was never intended, in secular things like the martial arts.  Trying to find religious symbolism in the form of a cross from two clashing jo staffs is just plain stupid.

One of the comments in the article that I found really offensive was where one of the people stated that in the Christianity that he was taught, anything not Christian is automatically evil.

A religious fanatic is a terrible thing, no matter what religion they are fanatical about.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 13, 2006)

That's funny... scary but funny.


----------



## Ray (Mar 13, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> This part is new to me, I don't think I have ever seen it claimed that Karate was founded by Adam...?


I own a book {that I bought because of some biographical sketches} that says Moses learned his staff fighting from Japan; and that Jesus Christ learned his healing arts from Japan.  It's a book about a particular Japanese Karate style.


----------



## beau_safken (Mar 13, 2006)

Would this book have a title?


----------



## Ray (Mar 13, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> Would this book have a title?


Yes, it would but I am not at home.  I will PM you the title, author, etc when I get home if you like. 

I'm afraid if I rely on my poor memory, I will get it wrong and offend someone...although I'm positive getting it right will also offend someone.


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 13, 2006)

My take....you can be a christian and a martial artist...but not a christian martial artist...Jesus said to turn the other cheek.....if someone takes your robe give him you caoat as well (is that self defence).....jesus said love your ememies.

MA says do not attack...but here let me show you how to hurt the bastartd if he tries to attack you!

its as different in philosophy as apples and oranges!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 13, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> I own a book {that I bought because of some biographical sketches} that says Moses learned his staff fighting from Japan; and that Jesus Christ learned his healing arts from Japan. It's a book about a particular Japanese Karate style.


 
Can't be true, Japanese are not Christian anad thereby evil.....just read the article.......I am attempting not to scream again.....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 13, 2006)

I originally wrote a rather lengthy tirade with quotes from the article and individual rebuttals, but after I calmed down I realized it was entirely pointless. No one that is as closed minded as those that this article speaks of or quotes would ever care or agree and ultimately would label me as evil, and it wouldnt be the first time (as surprising as this may sound to some). The way I see it nothing I am going to say will change anyones mind. 

Let me say if you are a Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, Hindu, or Muslim martial artists, etc. I have no problem with that I think it is great that you have that much conviction. I can respect a truly religious person or non-religious person (whatever the case may be) but as I think article points out, Zealot should cause some concern.
This appears to me to be people that are close minded and as is stated in the article, at least one feels that if it is not Christian it is evil. They fear what they do not understand and are not willing to put the time in to truly understand it so they change it to something they do not fear and understand. 

And bowing in a martial arts class is a sign of respect, not religion and if you think it is religious you need to look into it a little more. If you have a problem and you are not religious than it is arrogance and you dont belong in the dojo, school, kwoon or what ever you call it. This is of course assuming there is not a physical condition that does not allow you to bow in a certain way, which would be an entirely different story.

I believe they are coming from the perspective of that they are actually helping martial artists by saving us poor heathens that simply dont get it. Those who know whats best for us must rise and save us from ourselves, if you will. 

Be afraid; be very afraid they will destroy martial arts if you let them.

And, If the staffs in the shape of a cross is ok...is a right cross more holy than a front snap kick? OK thats a silly question, but I think it gets my point across.

Hey the crusaders held up their sword as a cross and when they took Jerusalem and killed every one, and I do mean everyone in the city.


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 13, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> A religious fanatic is a terrible thing, no matter what religion they are fanatical about.


Some of the worlds worst autrocities have been committed in the name of religion.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 13, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Some of the worlds worst autrocities have been committed in the name of religion.


 
yup


----------



## beau_safken (Mar 13, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Yes, it would but I am not at home. I will PM you the title, author, etc when I get home if you like.
> 
> I'm afraid if I rely on my poor memory, I will get it wrong and offend someone...although I'm positive getting it right will also offend someone.


 
General info is necessary only.  Was just curious if this was like "Billy Bibles take on jesus's TKD techniques".  But it would be interesting to see what that is all about...so yea that title would be cool sometime.  No worries about figuring it out quick or anything.


----------



## beau_safken (Mar 13, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Some of the worlds worst autrocities have been committed in the name of religion.


 
You mean like Billy Ray Cyrus or crusades...both were pretty bad...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 13, 2006)

_
 Some of the worlds worst autrocities have been committed in the name of religion_

You should say that the world's wort autocities have been committed for greed or the desire for power and control, some just used religion as an excuse


----------



## Ray (Mar 13, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> General info is necessary only. Was just curious if this was like "Billy Bibles take on jesus's TKD techniques". But it would be interesting to see what that is all about...so yea that title would be cool sometime. No worries about figuring it out quick or anything.


The book is: "Essential Shorinjiryu Karatedo" Author: Masayuki Kukan Hisataka. Publisher: Charles E. Tuttle Co. First edition: 1994.

Page 17, "Early History of Budo: "For example, it has been claimed the the prophet Moses visited the land of Hinomoto in about 1425 B.C..." Moses is apparently buried inside Hotatsu Mountain.

"It is claimed that as he [Jesus Christ] was impressed by the skills and teaching of Shaka, he made a journey...to India...and decided to continue to Hinomoto...in the 642 year of the Jingu Kingen era. Christ remained there for 5 years, receiving training in miraculous deeds, writing, ceremonial procedures, history, theocracy and other basic disiplines."

It doesn't preface any of that with "Here are some myths" or anything like it.


----------



## beau_safken (Mar 13, 2006)

I might just check it out for a good laugh.  Gotta love having access to the best books in the world...MEchanics library for life baby.  

I'll get back to you if I can stomach it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 13, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> receiving training in miraculous deeds


 
I want training in Miraculous Deeds.  Where can I get some of that?

My God, it sounds like Dungeons and Dragons!


----------



## beau_safken (Mar 13, 2006)

Oh damn sorry about that man...

Dam Roll of 16
Save Roll of 8..

You lose


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 13, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> Oh damn sorry about that man...
> 
> Dam Roll of 16
> Save Roll of 8..
> ...


 
Yes, but I have an 18 Charisma score, doesn't that count?


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 13, 2006)

So there I was, my Cleric character was separated from the rest of the Adventurers and surrounded by a warparty of Orcs backed up by 14 Trolls, a company of Hobgoblins and a pair of Hill Giants.  It really looked bad, with nowhere to run, so I dug deep and performed my "Miraculous Deeds" spell!  I rolled high, they rolled low and I was successful!!  They all turned into Five Loaves and Two Fish!!!


----------



## Monadnock (Mar 13, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Ok, I've seen Christian flavored martial arts before, claiming it's original intent was Christian God-centered seems a little bit of a stretch, how do they get that when they are doing Karate?


 
It has to do with the intent of the training, following the Law and practicing/teaching for His glory. Karate, like a lot of positive activites can be done in a Christian atmosphere.

There will always be frindge extreme groups claiming this or that. I'd suggest a little more reading on the part of the other posters before tossing the whole idea out the window as a bunch of bible-thumping crazies with jo's.

But this has all come up before on MT.


----------



## IcemanSK (Mar 13, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Ok, I've seen Christian flavored martial arts before, claiming it's original intent was Christian God-centered seems a little bit of a stretch, how do they get that when they are doing Karate?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
If it was, one would think it would be a bigger deal in Scripture than it is. (Yet, its non-existant!) I've put my $.02 about this here before. It really is hard for to stomach.


----------



## beau_safken (Mar 13, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Yes, but I have an 18 Charisma score, doesn't that count?



The worst part is I actually rolled for those numbers....I use them at work to mess with my boss....  Damn...I cant believe I admitted that..


----------



## Marginal (Mar 13, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> My take....you can be a christian and a martial artist...but not a christian martial artist...Jesus said to turn the other cheek.....if someone takes your robe give him you caoat as well (is that self defence).....jesus said love your ememies.


Nah. You just love 'em so much that you will do anything to prevent them from commiting a terrible sin. Even if they die, hey, at least your neighbor's *** wasn't coveted so they go to heaven and everyone's happy.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2006)

You guys... nevermind.​


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 14, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Nah. You just love 'em so much that you will do anything to prevent them from commiting a terrible sin. Even if they die, hey, at least your neighbor's *** wasn't coveted so they go to heaven and everyone's happy.


 
WOW....so angry! I say that you can be a martial artist and a christian! But the philosophies of MA contrtadict the teachings of Jrsus...so you need to learn them seperately! You cannot fuse thein any standard way...it needs to be a individual thing!!!

God Bless!


----------



## Marginal (Mar 14, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> WOW....so angry! I say that you can be a martial artist and a christian! But the philosophies of MA contrtadict the teachings of Jrsus...so you need to learn them seperately! You cannot fuse thein any standard way...it needs to be a individual thing!!!


 
Um, well... I was kidding. (I had hoped that would be implicit with the mention of one of the more assinine commandments).  

But really, the whole point of sects like the one in the article is to cherry pick the parts of the Bible that they happen to like best. It's not to advance any greater agenda than increasing attendance and fattening the donation bin. There's a mega church in Boulder county that's claiming religious persecution because the planning commission turned down their request to build a gymnasuim on their property. (Sketchy reading of the Bible going on there too.)


----------



## stone_dragone (Mar 14, 2006)

Christian Softball leagues. Buddhist Softball leagues.

Christian Bowling leagues. Hindu Bowling leagues.

Christian Buisnesses. Islamic Buisnesses.

Christian Martial Arts Schools. Secular Martial Arts Schools.

Christian Basket Weaving Academies. Hebrew Basket Weaving......


In the end, the difference is the motivation for why and how they each do what they do. That difference in motivation is the driving force in how they go about their various activities. 

As a follower of Christ, I'm told not to judge others for their beliefs or practices. I do my best, but I'm human. I ask for the same for my brothers and sisters in Christ from those who don't believe. 

Do I think that the school in the article is a little "out there"? Yes. 
Is the cross made from two jo-staff's kinda grasping at straws? Absolutely. 
Do I agree with everything that they are teaching (at least according to the article)? No. 
Do I need to? No.

Can the sometimes violent-facets of martial arts be used to convey the greater truths of God's love for us? No less than it can convey the harmonious peaceful state and self-perfection that is sought from those studying Budo. 

Am I trying to cram my beliefs down your throat? Not if you're still reading this post. 

To say that religious zealots are bad is to say that martial arts zealots are bad, as well. If nobody were zealous in their beliefs or practices, then eveybody would be mediocre, so-so or just plain middle-of-the-road. Funakoshi, Parker, Miyagi, Ueshiba, Kano, Lee, Rhee (sorry for leaving out chinese masters, you can see where my background lies...), all Martial zealots. 

We should thank zealots for showing you where on the continuum you sit (and that there just might be someone nuttier than yourself!) While religious zealots have done such things as fly planes into buildings and tried to conquer the world (911 and the Crusades...a little of both sides), they have also revealed corruption in the Catholic church (Martin Luther) and invented Beer (monks), neither of which can be seen as a bad thing from my seat. In several more months, I'll be back from the desert (OIF), being a dark-beer zealot once again. 

My two bits...


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 14, 2006)

stone_dragone said:
			
		

> Christian Softball leagues. Buddhist Softball leagues.
> 
> Christian Bowling leagues. Hindu Bowling leagues.
> 
> ...


 
There is a difference between being passionate about your beliefs and interests, and being a zealot or a fanatic.  

A zealot or fanatic believes that there is only one way to do something, and  everyone should believe what he believes.  He believes that anyone who does not believe as he does is evil (at least in the case of religion), and actively tries to convert everyone to his beliefs.  A zealot or fanatic is often willing to twist history to serve his own beliefs.

One who is passionate about their beliefs and interests spends much time actively pursuing these beliefs, connects with others who share these beliefs, extends a welcoming hand to others who may wish to join, but remains respectful of those who do not.

I would say that Funakoshi, Miyagi, Parker, Lee, Rhee, Ueyishiba, Kano, and yourself, are passionate about your beliefs and interests.  I wouldn't say you and they are zealots or fanatics.


----------



## stone_dragone (Mar 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> There is a difference between being passionate about your beliefs and interests, and being a zealot or a fanatic.
> 
> A zealot or fanatic believes that there is only one way to do something, and everyone should believe what he believes. He believes that anyone who does not believe as he does is evil (at least in the case of religion), and actively tries to convert everyone to his beliefs. A zealot or fanatic is often willing to twist history to serve his own beliefs.
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough!  :asian:


----------



## Don Roley (Apr 9, 2006)

I was going to start a new thread about this, but this seems the place to talk about it.

I have noticed that those that make a big deal of being Christians are the worst examples of the religion. Has anyone else thought this?

Those that are religious, but don't make a big show of it, seem to be the best people I know. It is the guys that try to impress others with how pious they are that are the ones that should be shot.:mp5: 

I know a few folks that just live the life of treating others as they would want to be treated. I never knew they were religious until I knew them and they could not make it to something due to church commitments. Otherwise you would never know. They never try to shove their religion down your throat- but are great examples of good Christians.

Let me give you some names. Bob Orlando and Steve Plinckt are both great practicioners of Silat and are friends with a friend of mine. I have met them and trained under them and until I did, I did not know they were active in religion. It was just a simple acknowledgement in both cases.

Then there is this.... other guy who is pretty much a part of the same tradition as them. But he makes a big deal about his religious beliefs on his tape I have as well as on his web site, etc. This guy is an anti-semite and openly hinted at threats of violence against others on the internet and other unsavory acts. Last I heard, they nailed him and put him behind bars. When they picked him up, he had something like 9 knives on him.

Oh yeah, and then there is the bozo cult I am helping some ex-members defend themselves legally from. One of the big things this cult master uses to keep his status in his area is his devotion to Jesus and the Christian emphisis of his claimed school of ninjutsu. And that is not even the only ninja fraud I could mention who has tried to hide behind religion.

So does anyone else think that those that try to make a big deal about being Christian are those least worthy of the title?


----------



## Carol (Apr 9, 2006)

Personally, I think it depends on the person, Don.  I think a lot of the people that are well deserving of the "title" go unnoticed.  We tend to only make a big deal out of the people that bug us, and pay little attention to the people that lead an exemplary life of service and sacrifice.  

Many Christian folks expres some tremendously inspiring personal experiences that have brought them closer to the Almighty.  

However, with some zealots, the inspiration of personal experience seems to take a back seat when it comes to expressing hatred.  

Where personal experience can bring a person from any path closer to God, I question if it is aslo truly personal experience that makes a Christian think that every  non-Christian is inherently evil?  Or, is it because that Christian was told such a thing so often that such a person believes it to be truth?  More confusing still is my wonderment as to why such hate is tolerated within the confines of the faith.

Perhaps there are many worthy Christians whose selfless faith and acts have simply been lost in the glare of "group-think".  If that is the case, that is a terrible loss.

No disrespect to anyone was meant from me, if any was take, I beg your forgiveness. :asian:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 9, 2006)

Both great good and great evil can be done in the name of religion, but then again both great good and great evil can be done without religion as well.

A zealot is an extremist and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be incredibly annoying. It is when the extremist crosses that line that things can get real bad real fast. I have always had great respect for a truly religious person, but I have great concern when it comes to a zealot.

Some people, and I am talking western and Middle Eastern religions here, Tend to get very close minded as to what they perceive as the true way. They are insistent that it is theirs and only theirs and all others that do not agree are wrong, ignorant and/or evil. But you can get this same attitude outside of religion as well. 

You also have those that can be complete B*st*rds, lie, cheat, and steal Monday through Saturday but on Sunday they go to church and all is forgiven and they believe they can do what they want because they go to church on Sunday. I generally refer to these a compartmentalized Christians. 

What my big concern is though are the people that are rewriting religious history to support their extremist beliefs and then justifying their actions by this rewrite of history. Those people are very scary to me. 

When this crosses over to a martial arts venue it becomes something other than martial arts. It hints at cult and that too is of great concern to me. 

However I am not saying that if you combine religion and martial arts you get a cult, quite the contrary, if that is what makes you happy and you re doing it because you are truly religious then I have great respect for your conviction.

 But when you are adding the religious aspect to the martial art because you do not understand the culture from which it came or you feel that that culture is evil because it is not Christian, that is a very different thing which I am very against, but still not a cult. 

It is when you get the extremist view mixed with Martial arts that it starts getting a bit scary. I have seen a couple of these, they always stay together, they do not discuss things with people outside of the group and they are truly convinced they are of the chosen people and doing gods will with martial arts training. And if you do not agree with them you are just wrong, end of story. And if someone is a member and wants to leave that person is asking for trouble.

SOAP BOX WARNING - THIS IS NOT A DRILL

This is slightly off post, and I apologize, but I feel that when you really get right down to the root of the issues between many religious disagreements it is basically 1 group feels that their way of worshiping god is better than another group. It is the same deity I just don&#8217;t understand what the argument is about in that case.

OFF SOAP BOX &#8211; WARNING OVER.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 9, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Where personal experience can bring a person from any path closer to God, I question if it is aslo truly personal experience that makes a Christian think that every  non-Christian is inherently evil?  Or, is it because that Christian was told such a thing so often that such a person believes it to be truth?  More confusing still is my wonderment as to why such hate is tolerated within the confines of the faith.


I realize this may be slightly off topic, but I've wondered about this myself.  Being Jewish, I have had rather more than the usual number of people attempt to 'save' me - to the extent that several well-educated people have gone to their own religious leaders to determine whether I am truly 'damned for all eternity' because I do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah.  

One of these people (the principal at the school where I teach) told me, with a great deal of relief, that the leader of her study group had assured her that, although I could never attain the highest levels of Heaven, I would be allowed into the lower levels with the other apostates who had, despite their quasi-heathenish status, lived a reasonably good/ethical/meaningful/etc. life.  

Another (a teacher I work with) told me that she didn't proselytize because, according to her Christian variant, when a non-believer dies, s/he is placed in what amounts to a university, and then educated in the correct belief system.  At the end of the universe, those in this educational setting are sorted into two groups - those that have accepted the 'correct' belief system, who go to Heaven for eternity, and those who have maintained their 'incorrect' beliefs, who are dumped into the pit for eternal torment.  Since this 'education' continues until Judgement Day, she was certain that I would see the error of my ways well before the end of time.

Both of these women meant well, and were truly trying to assure me that I was not eternally damned (at least, not automatically), as the more entrenched members of their religions believe... and I didn't have the heart to tell them how offensive I found their remarks - because no matter what they said, or how much they felt they were reassuring me, both of them clearly stated that it was _in spite_ of my religious beliefs, not _because of_ them, that I retained the potential to not spend the afterlife in Hell, because according to their religions, my religion was *wrong*, and left me in horrible danger, solely because I did not share belief in one particular issue... and belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah is the only real point on which Jews and Christians disagree; all the rest is detail - I'll grant that the entire New Testament is a *lot* of detail, but that was the point of schism, and the moral tenets (if not how they are expressed) remain fundamentally the same.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 9, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> I realize this may be slightly off topic, but I've wondered about this myself. Being Jewish, I have had rather more than the usual number of people attempt to 'save' me - to the extent that several well-educated people have gone to their own religious leaders to determine whether I am truly 'damned for all eternity' because I do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
> 
> One of these people (the principal at the school where I teach) told me, with a great deal of relief, that the leader of her study group had assured her that, although I could never attain the highest levels of Heaven, I would be allowed into the lower levels with the other apostates who had, despite their quasi-heathenish status, lived a reasonably good/ethical/meaningful/etc. life.
> 
> ...


 
What church do these people belong to "The church of the inquisition lite"

This is what I was talking about; it is basically the same deity, what's the big deal.

Jewish, Protestant, Catholic (to name a few). I just don't get it. I know both good and mean people and the denomination makes no difference

Your religion is your choice and truly none of their business and certainly it is not for them to decide who is good or evil. Let me think&#8230;..Judge not yet ye be judged yourself might be applicable here. That I find is the most forgotten religious phrase by most overly religious people

I have a family member that is a devout "in your face" type of Christian and I have a family member that is a devout Buddhist. The Christian is constantly concerned about the Buddhist's Soul and the Buddhist is worried about peace for everyone. And the Buddhist is one of the most consistently happy people I have ever known.

I once got into a discussion about religion with a Protestant minister and he was telling me about the true religion and he was also saying there was nothing wrong with Catholicism either, but beyond that all were either completely wrong or way off base. This was up until I asked him what the difference was between some native American religions that believed since there was a lot to do that God needed help so there was one major god and a lot of minor gods as assistants and one God and a whole lot of saints.

Basically the response was "Is that the time..I gotta go"


----------



## elder999 (Apr 9, 2006)

This has been a puzzlement to me for some time as well. I dont see any inherent contradiction between martial arts practice and most religions, including Christianity, though some Christians do. The mixture of them, though-and I mean Christianity, and martial arts, or Christian martial arts (and Im fairly sure that _thers no such thing_)- tends to seem rather flaky most of the time. While I know, just as Don Roley has mentioned, some rather top-notch martial artists who are strong Christians, and top-notch _people_, Ive never encountered any of individual member of or group of Christian martial artists who impressed me in any way but the negative-not saying that there arent any, just that  thats been my experiencethough do know of some groups that taught in parish halls (heck, I did for a little while.)

As for the whole Christian prosletyization issue, its part of their faith, for some groups-theyre supposed toproclaim the good news, and try to make converts-of us all, in some instances. Doesnt make it any less easy to stomach, sometimes, but its what they do to practice their religion, and I know from experience that the more resistance you offer to some of them, the more they  will rise to the challenge, for your good and theirs.

Kacey,you seem to have handled an awkward and possibly unlawful situation with a great deal of tact and grace-though their theological positions seem more than questionable and unsupported by conventional scripture that I know of.However, if you are employed in a public school, those remarks were unlawful  in the workplace(even in Colorado-even in Colorado Springs!)  no matter how well-intentioned, and should not be tolerated-as much as for the protection of the people that made them as for future employees.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 9, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Kacey,you seem to have handled an awkward and possibly unlawful situation with a great deal of tact and grace-though their theological positions seem more than questionable and unsupported by conventional scripture that I know of.However, if you are employed in a public school, those remarks were unlawful  in the workplace(even in Colorado-even in Colorado Springs!)  no matter how well-intentioned, and should not be tolerated-as much as for the protection of the people that made them as for future employees.



Since the conversation occurred in a social setting, and not in a classroom (both conversations occurred while chatting over lunch) legality is not the issue; both are friends of mine who were expressing sincere concern, and neither was attempting to force a viewpoint - rather, they were attempting, from within their own personal beliefs, to find ways to *not* find it necessary to proselytize, by giving me an "out", so to speak... and I'm in Denver, not Colorado Springs.


----------



## Marginal (Apr 9, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> As for the whole Christian prosletyization issue, its part of their faith, for some groups-theyre supposed toproclaim the good news, and try to make converts-of us all, in some instances.


 
On top of that, it's a right. (Or at least so claim the AFA preachy dudes.)


----------



## kelly keltner (Apr 9, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> Its that a massive contridiction...  I mean I'm not a bible beater, but doesn't it say in the bible to not do harm on to others?  Especially mixing combative energies with religion again...  I'm gonna call a big "what an idiotic idea" card.  Thats kinda like a shinto sect adopting western boxing as a means of conveying their love for their gods.  Seriously...I feel for you karate guys...I would be pretty destroyed if my art was used for these kinds of things...


Are we talkin old or new testament? A lot of hellfire and brimstone in the old and a lot turn the other cheek in the new.

kk


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 9, 2006)

Two things I'm going to mention.  I've only had dealings with one "Christian" martial arts group. the Christian Black Belt Assosciation.  Much of the time, they seem to spend more time worrying about everyones "eternal soul" than training.  That's thier right, and I'm sure not every group is like that.  The head of the group also says not to focus too much on Ki, because it's witchcraft.  That just makes me laugh.

The other thing I wanted to bring up was a diferent interpretation of turn the other cheek.  I'll have to do some digging to find the reference again, but here is one I've read.  In Roman times, and others from what I've read, you slapped people "beneath" you with the back of your hand, so by turning the other cheek, the idea was to force them to slap you with the palm of your hand, forcing them to acknowledge you as an equal.  I'll try to dig up where I came across that interpretation.

Oh, also, in the Gospel of Matthew I think, isn't there a verse about selling your coat so you can buy a sword to protect your family?  I'll look into that as well.

Jeff


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 9, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> What church do these people belong to "The church of the inquisition lite"
> 
> This is what I was talking about; it is basically the same deity, what's the big deal.
> 
> ...


 
Religious Worlds - The Perennial Philosophy

Theology Today - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

James Fowler's Faith-Development Theory

Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

An excerpt from the last link:

"Outwardly the doctrines of the worlds religions are clearly different, even contradictory, as can be seen in their theologies. The Hindu tradition, for example, includes many Gods, Judaism insists there is only one God, and Buddhism declares the question of God to be moot. Or again, Christianity believes that God is a Trinity and that the divine Son was incarnate as Jesus Christ, beliefs explicitly rejected by Islam. According to the perennial philosophy, however, such outwardly divergent teachings, providentially adapted to the spiritual, psychological, and cultural needs of different peoples at different stages of history, can be inwardly reconciled by those who are sensitive to their metaphysical and symbolic meanings and prepared to follow the golden thread of the dogmatic letter to its deeper spiritual meaning. It is for this reason that one finds such a remarkable consensus among the greatest mystics and sages, such as Shankara in Hinduism, Ibn Arabi in Islam, and Meister Eckhart in Christianity."

And another excerpt:

"Christian perennialists conclude that it is a mistake to confuse the uniqueness of the only-begotten and eternal Son of God with the alleged singularity of his historical manifestation in first-century Palestine. Without denying that there is only one Son of God, or that he alone is the author of salvation, or that Jesus Christ is that Son, they contend that there are no Biblical or dogmatic grounds for supposing that this one Son has limited his saving work to his incarnate presence as Jesus. On the contrary, as St Athanasius and other early fathers insisted, though the Word 'became flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1:14), he was not confined by his body even during his earthly ministry.

It is sometimes objected that this line of reasoning drives a wedge between the two natures of Christ, diminishing the integrity and importance of the historical Jesus in favor of the Word or cosmic Christ. But this is to forget that a separate Jesus of history, understood as a particular man with a temporally conditioned psychology, is largely the invention of modern scholars, who are themselves often at odds with the very teachings that traditionalist Christians intend to safeguard. According to the fathers, especially those who interpreted the Council of Chalcedon (451) along the lines established by St Cyril of Alexandria, the Jesus of history _[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]is [/FONT]_the cosmic Christ, for there is no historical person to be conceived alongside or in addition to the eternal Person of the only Son. Of course, the humanity of Jesus cannot be denied. 'Like us in all things except for sin' (Definition of Chalcedon), he was truly born, truly crucified, and truly raised from the dead. But in encountering this humanity what one encounters is not an individual human beingnot some 'man of Nazareth'but human nature as such, assumed into God and thus divinized.

Once this subtle point has been grasped, a number of other scriptural teachings begin to take on a more encompassing meaning. One reads in a new and fresh way that Christ is 'the true light who enlightens every man that comes into the world' (John 1:9), that he has 'other sheep who are not of this fold' (John 10:16), and that 'God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him' (Acts 10:34-35); and one notices that the events of Christs passion on Golgotha are the working out at a particular time and place of a strictly timeless salvation, for the Lamb of God, whose 'act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men' (Rom. 5:18), is 'slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev. 13:8). Following the thread of such clues, one begins to sense that the Son or Word, far from being limited to a single religion, is the divine principle behind all revelation and the eternal source of salvation in every authentic tradition. Though truly incarnate as Jesus Christ in Christianity, he is salvifically operative in and through non-Christian religions as well. In some he is present in an equally personal way, as in Krishna and the other Hindu avatars, in whom he was also 'made man' (Nicene Creed), while in others he appears in an impersonal way, as in the Quran of Islam, where he made himself book.

The concern is often expressed that a perennialist interpretation of Christianity has the effect of demoting Christ, making him only one among a variety of competing saviors. But if 'by their fruits' (Matt. 7:20) one may discern whether religions are valid and if the good fruit of sanctity is often found growing along non-Christian paths, it will perhaps seem instead that the power and scope of the Son of God are actually much greater than Christians had been led to believe, and the perennial philosophy will itself appear as a kind of inclusivism, but with an inclusivity no longer centered on Christianity or the church or its sacraments, but on Jesus Christ, the saving Source of all wisdom."

Laterz.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 10, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Religious Worlds - The Perennial Philosophy
> 
> Theology Today - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy
> 
> ...


 
I know by responding I am going against what I stated a couple of month ago, but allow this one transgression since I feel it is apparently necessary to clarify what I previously said.

First, my mistake, I should have made a statement that was a bit clearer. I am, when I refer to the same deity, referring to Western religions such as Catholicism, Christianity, etc. Also some eastern religions, Islam and Judaism. 

Hindu, Buddha, Taoist, Shinto, etc are not included in that statement. Sorry I was not clearer.

Second, your point is?


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 10, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> First, my mistake, I should have made a statement that was a bit clearer. I am, when I refer to the same deity, referring to Western religions such as Catholicism, Christianity, etc. Also some eastern religions, Islam and Judaism.


 
The notion that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all revere the "same deity" is an interesting concept, one that definitely merits further elaboration.

I think I should point out that, on the level of _literal dogma and doctrine_, these three religious traditions most assuredly do _not_ worship the same deity or god. YHVH is not the Holy Trinity is not Allah. There are too many doctrinal and theological differences, many which could be argued to be irreconciliable, to faithfully claim that the "true believer" from each of these faiths is addressing the same divinity.

However, as before, this is only on the level of literalist doctrine and theological dogma. Which brings me to.... 



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Second, your point is?


 
My point was not to contradict you, which you seem to have erroneously interpreted my post as doing, but to provide an alternative, equally "Christian", perspective from that offered by the fundamentalists you described before. My point is that literalism is not the only way to see Christianity.

To put it succinctly, my point is that from the perspective of the perennialist and the mystic, all valid religious traditions share an authentic Essence or Source. This Source is not the exclusive property of any one people, time, place, or cultural tradition.

My point is that on the level of literalism, all religions pretty much differ from one another. But, on the level of perennialism and mysticism, they are all pretty much One.

Laterz.


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 10, 2006)

This is a very interesting thread. I am a Christian that practices Martial Arts. I find no contradiction in the two. The Bible (neither old or new) teaches the follower to not "defend" themselves or their loved ones to the point of defending their countrymen. The Israelites went to war just like we do. As far as view points, there are always differences in opinions, that is the way it is, but in the end there is only ONE truth. I guess we will alll see soon enough. 
 The thought of Christians not woprshipping the same God as Judaism, I would have to disagree. Christian faith is based on the Messiah of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Although Christians today have left the original faith of following the Torah, as commanded by God and confirmed by Yeshua (Jesus), they most definately believe in the same God.  
 By the way I am a literalist.:asian:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 10, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The notion that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all revere the "same deity" is an interesting concept, one that definitely merits further elaboration.
> 
> I think I should point out that, on the level of _literal dogma and doctrine_, these three religious traditions most assuredly do _not_ worship the same deity or god. YHVH is not the Holy Trinity is not Allah. There are too many doctrinal and theological differences, many which could be argued to be irreconciliable, to faithfully claim that the "true believer" from each of these faiths is addressing the same divinity.
> 
> However, as before, this is only on the level of literalist doctrine and theological dogma. Which brings me to....


 
Agreed, literal and dogmatic interpretations they are very different. But in some cases it comes down to, something I previously said I do not debate, semantics. And there are no doubt major differences as well as surprising similarities



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> My point was not to contradict you, which you seem to have erroneously interpreted my post as doing, but to provide an alternative, equally "Christian", perspective from that offered by the fundamentalists you described before. My point is that literalism is not the only way to see Christianity.
> 
> To put it succinctly, my point is that from the perspective of the perennialist and the mystic, all valid religious traditions share an authentic Essence or Source. This Source is not the exclusive property of any one people, time, place, or cultural tradition.
> 
> ...


 
My apologies, I am by comparison old, and I have found that the older I get the less I want to read things in detail that I believe could have been presented differently or less wordy, if you will. That I admit is not a good attitude and it can be considered rude.

Once again agreed with one question, which type of perennialism; Educational perennialism, Secular perennialism, Religious perennialism?


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 10, 2006)

My typing is terrible....(previous post)....serves me right for replying while asleep!


----------



## elder999 (Apr 10, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> ..... and I'm in Denver, not Colorado Springs.


 
Oh, I know *exactly * where you are-it was a joke about the alleged high population of evengelical Christians in Colorado Springs......


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 11, 2006)

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> The thought of Christians not woprshipping the same God as Judaism, I would have to disagree. Christian faith is based on the Messiah of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Although Christians today have left the original faith of following the Torah, as commanded by God and confirmed by Yeshua (Jesus), they most definately believe in the same God.



If you want to put this hypothesis to the test, I suggest walking in five random synagogue services in your state. Count how many times the terms "Holy Trinity" and/or "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" are used.

The closest thing to the Trinity in Judaism is found in the ten sephiroth of the Kabbalah. It could be argued that the top three sephiroth --- Kether, Chokmah, and Binah --- form some kind of "trinity". But, then again, I think most Jewish scholars would disagree with such an assessment. 



			
				kamishinkan said:
			
		

> By the way I am a literalist.:asian:



So, I take it you disagree with the writings of St. Dionysius, then??

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent." 
- St. Dionysius, _The Letters_

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 11, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Agreed, literal and dogmatic interpretations they are very different. But in some cases it comes down to, something I previously said I do not debate, semantics.



This isn't a matter of semantics, it's a matter of mythology.

The characteristic feature of the mythological worldview (what philosopher Jean Gebser described as 'mythic-membership') is an intensified sense of sociocentrism (or enthnocentrism), xenophobia, and in-group status. What unites all "fundamentalists" --- whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or what have you --- is the defining belief that they are the "right" or "chosen" or "saved" people, that all others (while they may be "nice" or "good" people) are "wrong", and that all those "others" are going to be punished by "their" god (whether in afterlife or at the End of Days). 

Concomitant with this worldview is the perspective that their ethical and metaphysical teachings (in the case of fundamentalist Christians, that of the Bible) are absolutely, eternally, and _literally_ true. The notion that the teachings of the Bible are historically or socially conditioned, or in any way bound up in some kind of context, is quite literally _impossible_ for them to accept.



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Once again agreed with one question, which type of perennialism; Educational perennialism, Secular perennialism, Religious perennialism?



I should point out that when I say "perennialism", I am specifically referring to Adlous Huxley's _perennial philosophy_, which has been elucidated in recent years by the religious scholar, Huston Smith. I would suggest reading his books (especially his _The Forgotten Truth_), as well as perusing the aforementioned links, for a good primer on this philosophy.

The philosopher Ken Wilber gives a good explanation of the perennial philosophy in his _Grace and Grit_, as well.

That being said, I think the issue is more complex than simply choosing one philosophical ideology over another. James Fowler's faith-development theory, my discussion of which I linked in a previous post, points to the reality that this is moreso a developmental issue than a preferential one.

Laterz.


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 11, 2006)

Your hypothesis does not hold water, this is the correct way of doing that "experiment". Go to your local synagouge and ask about Elohim, Ruach Ha kodesh (Holy Spirit) and The Messiah. This is the true test, I have many Jewish "friends" and they all agree that the so-called trinity of Christianity is the same as the three mentioned above. 
 As far as my agreement with St. Dionysius, I do not. It is a historical fact that the so called "church fathers" were far removed from the original teachings of the Messiah and His Apostles. Rome was a breeding ground of many religions and Christianity was heavily "mixed" with those known religions to form something far different from the original teachings as taught in Jerusalem. By the second to third centuries, Rome was so far removed that the "church" leaders sent out an edict to the followers of the Messiah in Jerusalem to renounce their Jewish ties or be killed. I do not put any stock in the writings of the so-called "church fathers" or the councils of Rome as correct understandings of this rich Hebraic faith.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 11, 2006)

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> Your hypothesis does not hold water, this is the correct way of doing that "experiment". Go to your local synagouge and ask about Elohim, Ruach Ha kodesh (Holy Spirit) and The Messiah. This is the true test, I have many Jewish "friends" and they all agree that the so-called trinity of Christianity is the same as the three mentioned above.


 
I have Jewish friends, too. They would burst out laughing if I suggested the Messiah was God Incarnate (or, as the author of the Gospel of John put it, "God made flesh").

Furthermore, I doubt many Jewish scholars would even consider the Holy Spirit to be ontologically distinct from "the Father", as we see in Christianity. There are many, many different names for God in the Old Testament (most of which originally referred to different gods) --- Adonai, El-Elohim, El-Shaddai, YHVH, and so on. Are you suggesting every single one of them constitutes some type of sub-personality?? If not, then why should the Holy Spirit be singled out?? What about the feminine Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs??



			
				kamishinkan said:
			
		

> It is a historical fact that the so called "church fathers" were far removed from the original teachings of the Messiah and His Apostles.



Your "historical facts" are the result of your mythological worldview, not a critical analysis of historical evidence.

As it currently stands, it is highly debatable whether "the Messiah" and "His Apostles" even existed. Furthermore, even if they did, we know next to nothing about what they actually taught. The earliest Christian writings we have knowledge of are letters attributed to St. Paul. The content of the Synoptics makes it glaringly clear they were not authored by natives of first century Palestine (or even by Hebrew speakers).

Oh, and by the way, St. Dionysius was a compatriot of St. Paul who, according to the story, was martyred for his beliefs. He was not a "church father". Furthermore, there are rather similar teachings found in Paul's own letters.



			
				kamishinkan said:
			
		

> Rome was a breeding ground of many religions and Christianity was heavily "mixed" with those known religions to form something far different from the original teachings as taught in Jerusalem.



You mean like virgin births, transforming water into wine, atoning one's sins through the sacrificial death of the resurrecting godman, consuming the blood and flesh of the godman to achieve immortality?? 

Sorry, those are all Pagan motifs --- specifically derived from legends about Dionysus and Osiris.

I would suggest familiarizing yourself with Platonic philosophy, then perusing the letters of Paul. Christianity, from its very earliest writings, has been heavily injected with "Pagan" ideas. This wasn't something that happened later, to "corrupt" the Christian faith (a common accusation Protestants hurl at Catholics). Rather, it was something present from its very beginnings. 



			
				kamishinkan said:
			
		

> By the second to third centuries, Rome was so far removed that the "church" leaders sent out an edict to the followers of the Messiah in Jerusalem to renounce their Jewish ties or be killed.



Sources??

Also, the "Christians" in 3rd century Jerusalem were Ebonite Gnostics, who had there own set of gospels (such as the Gospel of the Hebrews). 



			
				kamishinkan said:
			
		

> I do not put any stock in the writings of the so-called "church fathers" or the councils of Rome as correct understandings of this rich Hebraic faith.



In all likelihood, Christianity was originally an Alexandrian faith. The parallels between the "Christians" and the Therapeutae brotherhood are too much to have been sheer coincidence. Even the Church historian Eusebius believed them to have been Christ's "first disciples", which would have been a historical impossibility.

Laterz.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 11, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I have noticed that those that make a big deal of being Christians are the worst examples of the religion. Has anyone else thought this?


 
Often, those who sit closest to the front in church, are the worst of the bunch.

A relative of mine passed away a couple years ago.  Her husband had passed away several years before, and they had no children.  Her assets were split among her several siblings.  Most of them were very honorable and generous in dealing with the death, the funeral, and settling the estate.  One sibling was atrocious.  He was petty and selfish and greedy.  It was shameful how he acted.  He also sits near the front in church, and makes a big deal out of how devoted he is.  I was embarrassed to be related to him.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 11, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> The other thing I wanted to bring up was a diferent interpretation of turn the other cheek. I'll have to do some digging to find the reference again, but here is one I've read. In Roman times, and others from what I've read, you slapped people "beneath" you with the back of your hand, so by turning the other cheek, the idea was to force them to slap you with the palm of your hand, forcing them to acknowledge you as an equal. I'll try to dig up where I came across that interpretation.
> 
> 
> Jeff


 
Yes, I have read about this as well.  According to this, the "Turn the other cheek" bit has gotten completely misinterpreted, if you understand the social context of the time.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 11, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Yes, I have read about this as well.  According to this, the "Turn the other cheek" bit has gotten completely misinterpreted, if you understand the social context of the time.



Can you remember your source on that? I've been tearing up my library and the public one as well looking for it.  No luck so far

Jeff


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 11, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> Can you remember your source on that? I've been tearing up my library and the public one as well looking for it. No luck so far
> 
> Jeff


 
I don't, and to be honest I can't remember if I read it, or if I was listening to a religious scholar interviewed on talk radio or something.  It's a very interesting point, and if I come up with it, I will let you know.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 11, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek



> Historical, figurative interpretation
> 
> Those interpreting this passage figuratively have cited historical and other factors in support. They note that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the dicipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. Further, it is argued, by handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:
> 
> ...



Don't see any citations there on this though.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 11, 2006)

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> Your hypothesis does not hold water, this is the correct way of doing that "experiment". Go to your local synagouge and ask about Elohim, Ruach Ha kodesh (Holy Spirit) and The Messiah. This is the true test, I have many Jewish "friends" and they all agree that the so-called trinity of Christianity is the same as the three mentioned above.


Being Jewish myself, I find this unbelievable.  I have never heard it before (and I'm nearly 40), nor do I agree with it personally.  For myself, I have little difficulty with the concept of multiple incarnations of a single god - but the key difference between Judaism and Christianity is that in Judaism, the Messiah has not come yet - nor are the conditions for the coming of the Messiah yet fulfilled... thus the schism between Judaic and Christian beliefs.



> Originally posted by *heretic888*
> What unites all "fundamentalists" --- whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or what have you --- is the defining belief that they are the "right" or "chosen" or "saved" people, that all others (while they may be "nice" or "good" people) are "wrong", and that all those "others" are going to be punished by "their" god (whether in afterlife or at the End of Days).



Actually, this is a very common misconception, at least as far as Judaism is concerned.  The only significance attached to being "chosen" from a Jewish perspective is that Jews, having recognized a single God first, will be the first to be judged when Judgement Day arrives... ask yourself if this is good or bad... it could go either way.  Think about Olympic judging - the first person/group to go may be judged higher (no comparison) or lower (keeping a high score for later, just in case) than those that follow.  Other peoples of the world who recognize and accept a single God will be judged likewise - but again, is it good or bad to be judged after someone else?


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 11, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Actually, this is a very common misconception, at least as far as Judaism is concerned.


 
Please note that I was specifically addressing Jewish fundamentalism, not Judaism as a whole.

Laterz.


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 11, 2006)

Kacey, 

 Let me clear my point, What I was explaining is that in Judaism the concept of Elohim as God is clear as quoted in the 1st verse of the Torah (re'shiyth *Elohim* bara' shamayim 'eth 'erets). The concept of Elohim is the same as in comparison to the "Father God", Creator as usually found in the so called trinity. 
 The Holy Spirit is the concept of the Ruach Ha Elohim as cited in Gen 1:2 "erets hayah tohuw bohuw choshek 'al paniym tehom* Ruach Elohim *rachaph 'al paniym mayim". 
 The concept of the Messiah is all over the Torah. Messianic followers believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah, this is different, but my point is the *concept *of the Messiah, not necessarily who the Messiah is.
 Again, this is the three that are typically classified as a tri-unity. 
Hope this helps explain what I was saying.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 11, 2006)

Kamishinkan -

As I said, I have *never* heard this interpretation... and after reading it earlier I discussed it with a friend of mine who is Orthodox (as opposed to Reform, which is what I am)... her response was, to put it mildly, shock and disgust, after which she began a diatribe on misinterpretation which I stopped only with difficulty.  I then emailed my father (who had, at one point, studied to enter the rabbinate) and he had heard of it but did not agree with it, and sent me to several reference sources which discussed, but disputed, this concept.  In his opinion, this concept is believed only by Messianic Jews, who are, strictly speaking, not Jewish, but are, instead, a Christian sect that claims to be Jewish, while still believing that Jesus was the Messiah.



> "Hear O Israel, YHVH is G-d, YHVH is ONE." (Deut 6:4)    I do not subscribe to trinitarian/tri-unitarian doctrines which attempt to define G-d as three Persons in One.  YHVH is One.
> I am convinced one reason why a trinitarian doctrine was incorporated into Christianity was to explain the 'person' of Yeshua; to explain how he could be G-d. That G-d could take on human form as an earthly Messiah isn't difficult to accept -- afterall -- He'd previously supped with Abraham (Gen 18) and He had wrestled with Jacob (Gen 32) *while also in human form*. Our powerful G-d can manifest Himself in many forms; there is no need for these weak doctrines that attempt to sub-divide the godhead in attempts to explain "how" He does it. Trinitarians start dividing up the godhead so that the Father is one person, the Son/Yeshua is a second person, and then the Ruach (spirit) is a third person. Scripture never says G-d is divided up into three persons! The word 'trinity' isn't even Scriptural. Trinity is a manmade doctrine that borrows heavily from pagan sources. Scripture tells us G-d is One *not* three. Ultimately the trinity doctrine seeks to limit our heavenly Father to merely * one-third * of the godhead. Isn't it easier to just accept Scripture at Its Word? We have One G-d, and He can manifest Himself in any form He chooses without needing to be subdivided to fit the manmade doctrines.
> excerpted from http://www.lightofmashiach.org/one.html





> Much confusion over the Trinity has developed from the Hebrew  word "elohim." The term elohim is in the oldest Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts  and is therefore a legitimate title for the Heavenly Majesty.
> There is a total lack of evidence in the Bible to say that  the term "elohim" represents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however. The word  is a collective noun, masculine in gender, denoting more than one mighty  one  yet indicating no particular or precise number. One concordance gives the  meaning of elohim this way: "Elohim, G-d (plural of majesty; plural in form but  singular in meaning, with a focus on great power); g-ds (true grammatical  plural); and person characterized by greatness of power, mighty one, great one,  judge" (_*Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance*_).
> 
> excerpted from http://www.yrm.org/trinity-fact-fiction.htm


 


> One of the reasons you do not see practicing Jews flock to the Christian churches is that they know better than to accept doctrines such as the 'Holy Trinity.' Jews know all too well from the Tanach (Old Testament) that it was accepting aspects of pagan doctrine into their worship with Yahweh that cause them to be separated from Yahweh in the past. It is these pagan doctrines that actually keep Jews from accepting the Messiah because any Torah-observant Jew will never accept these strange doctrines.
> One thing that Christians do not realize is that practicing Jews pray the Shema three times a day. If you are a Christian you may be wondering, "what is the Shema?" I rest my case. The Shema is a traditional Hebrew prayer, taken from Scripture as all Hebrew prayers are, that simply states that God is one person. In other words they have been taught for thousands of years that God is one, not three (persons).
> 
> Excerpted from http://www.nazarite.net/holy-trinity.html





> *Rabbi Stanley Greenberg of Temple Sinai in Philadelphia wrote:*
> _*"Christians are, of course, entitled to believe in a Trinitarian conception of God. but their effort to base this conception on the Hebrew Bible must fly in the face of the overwhelming testimony of that Bible. Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God The Hebrew Bible affirms the one God with unmistakable clarity Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew."*_
> *Whether Christians are accused of being polytheists or tritheists and whether or not it is admitted that the Christian concept of the Tri-unity is a form of monotheism, one element always appears: one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it still does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness. Rabbi Greenberg's article tends to reflect that thinking.*
> *He went on to say, *_*"... under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible."*_* It is perhaps best to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it: Hebrew Scriptures. Since so much relies on Hebrew Scripture usage, then to the Hebrew we should turn.*
> ...


 
It's an interesting interpretation, but for myself, I find it to be an attempt to fit the monotheistic God of Judaism into the tripartite God of Christianity after the fact - to justify creating a god with three facets from a god with only one, not necessarily by modern clerics, but by ancient ones who were trying to fit teachings of multiple religions into one religion - something Christianity has long been known to do; many so-called Christian traditions come from other, older, and most decidedly pagan religions (the Yule log, Easter Eggs, Christmas trees, etc.).  All of the sources I could find that support this are from Messianic Jews - who, as I said, are not truly Jewish from a theological standpoint, no matter what they may think or say they are.  

That doesn't mean you haven't heard it from others who consider themselves to be Jewish (and I find it interesting that you put the word "friends" in quotes when referring to these people) - just, as I said, that I have never heard it before, don't agree with it, and don't personally know anyone Jewish who does either.  

After all, the biggest problem with religion, and religious intrepretation is that is is based on a peculiar type of opinion - that is, one based entirely on faith - and faith, by definition, cannot be proven - only believed.


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 12, 2006)

Kacey,

 Great thanks for the dialouge. I am not sure, since the thread started is about CMA, if it is the right place to continue though. 
 I read your post and found what I have found in the past to be true. Many of the Jewish people when asked about "Christian" concepts usually will not dialouge long enough to see that Messianic belief must be based in the Hebrew scriptures. In saying that, many times other "Christians" lacking in knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures mis-understand their own core beliefs. This can cause a further division. The belief of the "tri-unity" of God does NOT emply polytheism. Believers in Yeshua do not believe in three Gods. We believe in the Shema, "Hear Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one". Suffice it to say that this concept (tri-unity of one) is "manifistations" of the one God, Elohim.
 As far as my Jewish "friend", the family is orthodox who's children are in Yasheva (sp?) in NY. I do have Messianic friends as well, and to say that a blood Jewish person is no longer Jewish because they believe in Yeshua is silly. I say this since, no one said the followers of the self proclaimed Messiah, Bar Kochba in the revolt against Rome of the first century that they were not "Jewish". My Jewish friend sat down with me long enough to find out that what we believe (correctly understood) is based in Hebrew scriptures.  
 Again, my point is Jewish people believe in Elohim, Ruach Elohim and the Messiah (although still patiently waiting  ). This was my point. 
 I would love to dialogue with you further, If you would, maybe on e-mail? I am Torah observant and love to better understand the Hebrew scriptures, so for me to speak with others about the scriptures is a great blessing.
 As far as the Pagan "stuff" of Christianity, I have repented of that stuff long ago, I observe the Biblical holidays as commanded by God.
 And in all of this I practice Martial arts, so there is my CMA spot. :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 17, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> many so-called Christian traditions come from other, older, and most decidedly pagan religions (the Yule log, Easter Eggs, Christmas trees, etc.).


 
True enough, but many elements within traditional Jewish religion also come from other, older, and most decidedly "pagan" sources (the Garden of Paradise, the Great Flood, the symbolism of the Twelve, the End of Days, and so on). The late mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote extensively on just this very subject.



			
				kamishinkan said:
			
		

> As far as the Pagan "stuff" of Christianity, I have repented of that stuff long ago


 
So, then, you have "repented" of the Virgin Birth, the Transfiguration on the Mount, the Word, the Eucharist, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Second Coming???

Because every single one of those mythos, without exception, have their origins in pre-existing "pagan" Mystery cults of the Hellenistic period.

Laterz.


----------



## donald (Apr 17, 2006)

To Any Interested,

I am a Christian, and I enjoy the martial arts. I don't see where the  Bible speaks against sports, or involvement in them. Someone on this site quoted scripture, i.e. Matthew 5:39, and I believe Matthew 5:43-44. It is not necessary to hate someone. To defend yourself/others against them. If you did hate them you would be sinning against GOD.  I believe that there are times GOD demands that we turn the other cheek. That can be both in a physical sense, and an emotional one, but I also believe that we are permitted as believers to defend our loved ones, ourselves, and others in need of our help. I have been one who has prayed long, and hard about this subject. As well as sought the counsel of elder Christians. The martial arts are a contact sport, and yes you can go about it in a way that would be displeasing to The Lord Jesus. I don't believe every Christian will agree on martial arts training. Pray, read your Bible, and see what GOD says to your heart. Bottom line is to make sure if you want to try training. Make very sure that what you're getting into does'nt promote anti-Christ teachings. I hope Iwas helpful to someone.
By GOD's Grace (1st John 1:9)


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 17, 2006)

Donald, 

 God never intended for a person to be "defenseless" against an attacker. 
I love the apostles with the Messiah with swords and staffs. (Mark 14:47, Luke 22:36, Mark 6:8)

heretic,

 I almost don't want to comment on your repentance comment....BUT If you look at the "virgin birth" as a new testament concept and not found in the book of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 7:14) (Isaiah written approx 770-710 BC), then I guess the pagan birth teachings would predate it. Since the Hellenistic period began with the defeat of Persia by Alexander the great (334-323 BC)_, _I think Isaiah has it beat. It seems that pagan teachings are usually taken from the TRUTH. Most deceptions are usually based in some form of the truth, that is what makes it so deceptive! The same goes with the other concepts as well. The New Testament is only a narrative of Old(er) Testament concepts coming to pass.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 18, 2006)

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> heretic,
> 
> I almost don't want to comment on your repentance comment....BUT If you look at the "virgin birth" as a new testament concept and not found in the book of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 7:14) (Isaiah written approx 770-710 BC), then I guess the pagan birth teachings would predate it. Since the Hellenistic period began with the defeat of Persia by Alexander the great (334-323 BC)_, _I think Isaiah has it beat. It seems that pagan teachings are usually taken from the TRUTH. Most deceptions are usually based in some form of the truth, that is what makes it so deceptive! The same goes with the other concepts as well. The New Testament is only a narrative of Old(er) Testament concepts coming to pass.


 
From a recent post on the JesusMysteries discussion group:



			
				Carl Miller said:
			
		

> I don't think this matter can be resolved by means of resorting to Jewish history.  Virgin birth was not a concept there, but it was certainly a common literary structure among the Greeks and Romans to designate a heroic person, whether Alexander or Octavian.  The authors of Matthew and Luke were obviously reaching out to a wider audience than the Jewish community, and they were willing to adopt the method that had been used by Greek writers.  To the Greeks, virgin birth was only a literary metaphor, and to reintroduce this metaphor back into Jewish culture as historical fact and then argue the pro and cons within this foreign context only leads to confusion and a debate that has no real significance.
> 
> The Jewish Yahoshua sects did not advocate a virgin birth, but rather vehemently denied it.  This fact, in itself, is reason enough to suppose that virgin birth was an innovation and not part of the earliest teachings.  Literary historical fiction does not require that all aspects of the setting be entirely correct, for what is important is the message that the author hopes to support, I.e., his own agenda.  If he chooses to use metaphorical language to advance this agenda, as was common in literature of his time, then we should not read it as though it has to fit the assumptions of later Christian writers of Catholic and Protestant traditions.  Such a parochial view creates the argument where none was necessary.
> 
> ...


 
I think that sums up my own views on the subject quite well.

Furthermore, I find your invocation of explanations like 'Diabolical Mimicry' or 'Divine Prefigurement' (depending on whether you want to give a negative or a postive slant on the situation) to be both quite absurd as well as very telling. I am approaching the subject from the point of view of a social scientist, postmodern philosopher, and religious scholar. My views are open to change or revision, given the appropriate evidence. You, on the other hand, are approaching the subject from the point of view of a faithful "true believer" and, as such, no amount of evidence or reasoning could possibly sway your positions on the subject. This is clearly evidenced in the fact that you regard your religious traditions as "the truth", while denigrating so-called pagan traditions as "deceptions". I would point you once again to psychologist James Fowler's Faith-Development Theory, but as you'd likely just dismiss it as more "deceptions", I really don't see the point.

Good day. 

Laterz.


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 18, 2006)

This is correct I am approaching this from the standpoint of a "true believer" but that does not mean that I am not open to investigation. I will not use the ramblings of so called "experts" that do not use factual information to base their "beliefs". I quoted Isaiah 7:14 (written between 770-710 BC) "Therefore Adonai Himself will give you a miraculous sign; Behold a young virgin will be pregnant and bear a son and will call his name _God with us."_ As I said this FAR predates the Hellenistic period and lends credence to the BASIC concept as taught by followers of the Messiah. I just used written documentation to PROVE that the concept predates the Hellenistic period (by some 400 years) but you still "believe" what you believe contrary to the evidence. I guess, as I have said before, we will all see sooner or later (one way or another).


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 18, 2006)

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> This is correct I am approaching this from the standpoint of a "true believer" but that does not mean that I am not open to investigation. I will not use the ramblings of so called "experts" that do not use factual information to base their "beliefs". I quoted Isaiah 7:14 (written between 770-710 BC) "Therefore Adonai Himself will give you a miraculous sign; Behold a young virgin will be pregnant and bear a son and will call his name _God with us."_ As I said this FAR predates the Hellenistic period and lends credence to the BASIC concept as taught by followers of the Messiah. I just used written documentation to PROVE that the concept predates the Hellenistic period (by some 400 years) but you still "believe" what you believe contrary to the evidence. I guess, as I have said before, we will all see sooner or later (one way or another).


 
No, kamishinkan, you are a "true believer" and, as such, no matter what evidence or logic is presented, you quite literally _cannot_ be persuaded to adopt another position. You can claim that you are "open to investigation" all you wish, but we both know you would _never_ accept the possibility that the Virgin Birth is a myth.

Now, as to your inquiry, I would be _exceedingly_ skeptical of any conventional dating of the Old Testament. However, it matters very little in this case, as the original Hebrew _almah_ does not translate into "virgin" anyway (a more accurate translation, one that Jewish scholars would actually agree with, is "young woman"). The form from the Greek Septugaint, _parthenos_ translates into "virgin", of course, but this is a common literary device of Greek culture at the time. The Septugaint translations took place between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, and it is this text that all the New Testamental authors (both "Paul" and the Synoptic authors) rely upon.

Furthermore, "virgin births" predate the rise of Alexander by several centuries. There is a "virgin birth" that is virtually identical to the impregnation of Mary in Euripides' _Bacchae_, which dates to the mid-400's BCE. Euripides didn't just pull this construct out of thin air in his play about Dionysus-Bacchus. Osiris-Horus could also be said to be born of a sort of "virgin birth".

All in all, though, even if a referenced "virgin birth" does exist in a single line in the Old Testament, it is nothing short of ethnocentric arrogance to assume that all other "virgin births" are approximated from this source. This is very much in alignment with the "my way is the truth, all others are deceptions" reasoning you appealed to in an earlier post, a characteristic feature of all mythic-sociocentric worldviews.

Laterz.


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 18, 2006)

Interesting.....All of the sources I have looked at agree "roughly" on the dating of Isaiah (700's BCE). This still "predates" these other "virgin births". As far as the word "virgin"...the Hebrew word *'almah* does mean young girl as you said, BUT that would not be a "miraculous sign" as stated in the verse (Hebrew word *'owth* which means miraculous sign or signal) The miraculous sign as stated is that the YOUNG GIRL gave birth. It IMPLIES that she was "young" as in not yet sexually active. Modern Jewish scholars would, OF COURSE, render that *without* the miraculous sign statement, to not give credence to the beliefs of the followers of the Messiah. We also forget that students of biblical history age pregnant Miriam (Mary) to 13-14 years old, I guess she fits the bill in both interpretations! Yeshua would still fit the prophetic picture as painted by the prophets without this "miraculous birth".


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 18, 2006)

kamishinkan,

The rendering of the Hebrew _almah_ ("young girl") into the Greek _parthenos_ ("virgin") was done so deliberately so as to harmonize traditional Judaism with Greek literary mythos. In much the same way, the Hebrew _YHVH_ ("I am that I am" or "I am who I am") is rendered into the Greek _Ego eimi ho on_ ("I am the Being") in order to harmonize Jewish thought with Platonic/Orphic philosophy. One modern commentator said something to the effect that this "Platonizes the Lord himself".

You have to understand that there was a strong push at the time for Jewish philosophers to come up with _ex post facto_ rationalizations for the Jews to take up Hellenistic philosophy and rites. A lot of historical absurdities were suggested, such as Pythagoras having been a student of Moses in Egypt and so forth. These were presented in order to convince their Jewish audiences that all this pagan philosophy was really "their stuff". Philo of Alexandria was a perfect example of this trend.

The Septugaint, which is the 'Old Testament' that the Christian authors were using, was just a part of this movement.

Laterz.


----------



## kamishinkan (Apr 18, 2006)

I have heard this before, won't argue this point at all. As far as the Septuagent, I don't use it to "check" modern Christian beliefs. I go back to the Tanakh and read it in Hebrew, I have several Hebrew to English translation books and programs. Again, as I said in the previous posts, I did not get the "virgin" concept from the Septuagent. I got the concept by reading the whole verse in Isaiah in Hebrew to see if the concept held water. Re-read the Miraculous sign post. I also studied Messianic concepts through Dr. Michael Brown, who is a Jew, and holds a doctorate of near Eastern languages. Fluently reads, writes and speaks Hebrew and Greek. According to his rendering of Isaiah 7:14, explains that the miraculous sign ('owth) explains the concept. Not only that but Rabbi Monte Judah teaches the Kabballistic rendering of Isaiah 9:6 (also considered a "Messianic scripture" states that the Hebrew letter mem in that verse is "closed" the word picture of the mem is "chaotic waters" or more commonly rendered "BIRTH WATERS". He makes the point that the mem being closed represents the "birth chamber" of the Messiah would be CLOSED. This is interesting but not very scientific. Just a thought. Re-read the previous point but I think at this point it is becoming a "tennis match".


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 20, 2006)

kamishinkan said:
			
		

> I have heard this before, won't argue this point at all. As far as the Septuagent, I don't use it to "check" modern Christian beliefs. I go back to the Tanakh and read it in Hebrew, I have several Hebrew to English translation books and programs. Again, as I said in the previous posts, I did not get the "virgin" concept from the Septuagent. I got the concept by reading the whole verse in Isaiah in Hebrew to see if the concept held water. Re-read the Miraculous sign post. I also studied Messianic concepts through Dr. Michael Brown, who is a Jew, and holds a doctorate of near Eastern languages. Fluently reads, writes and speaks Hebrew and Greek. According to his rendering of Isaiah 7:14, explains that the miraculous sign ('owth) explains the concept. Not only that but Rabbi Monte Judah teaches the Kabballistic rendering of Isaiah 9:6 (also considered a "Messianic scripture" states that the Hebrew letter mem in that verse is "closed" the word picture of the mem is "chaotic waters" or more commonly rendered "BIRTH WATERS". He makes the point that the mem being closed represents the "birth chamber" of the Messiah would be CLOSED. This is interesting but not very scientific. Just a thought. Re-read the previous point but I think at this point it is becoming a "tennis match".


 
kamishinkan,

Unfortunately, the problem with your reasoning is that it has a decidedly "selective" value to it. In essence, you are using an _allegorical_ reading of Isaiah (and, to a lesser extent, Genesis) to "prove" a _literal_ reading of Matthew and Luke.

This is not only logically and linguistically inconsistent, but it is also betrays Occam's Razor (do not multiply hypotheses needlessly). As "virgin births" --- or, rather, miraculous or supernatural births in general --- were a common motif of the popular literature of the time (i.e., Euripides' _Bacchae_), it stands to reason that the Gospel authors used the device of a "virgin birth" (in the earliest forms of extant Christology, such as the Pauline or Johannine strands, he is not "born" but instead "descends" to earth) in order to compare Jesus Christ to legendary heroes such as Orpheus, Apollonius, Heracles, or Bacchus.

Furthermore, even establishing an allegorical reading of a "virgin birth" in the Old Testament, one cannot logically conclude that Jesus Christ therefore was literally born of a virgin. It is just as likely that this was a late construction (Justin Martyr, writing around 160 CE, is seemingly unaware of either the virgin birth story, nor does he mention Mary or Joseph by name) of the evolving Christian communities, using the Greek Seputagaint as a proof text for their allegorizing.

Laterz.


----------

