"Christian Martial Arts"

[Kacey]

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]

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.

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…..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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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…..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"

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]

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.

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]

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....

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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

 

[elder999]

..... 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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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??

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.

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.

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).

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]

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]

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.