United Martial Artists for Christ

[drop bear]

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

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

 

[RTKDCMB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JR 137]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because every valid marriage is sacred and holy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

The cross, or the vampire?

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Paul_D]

Does performing that ritual make you religious?

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

 

[JR 137]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Druid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JR 137]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Druid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TSDTexan]

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even if Sam, never knew it.

 

[TSDTexan]

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

They do.

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Even if Sam, never knew it.

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

 

[JR 137]

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

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

 

[TSDTexan]

• JR,

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


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

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