United Martial Artists for Christ

[Druid]

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

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

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

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

 

[TSDTexan]

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

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

 

[TSDTexan]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Druid]

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

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

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

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

 

[RTKDCMB]

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

I 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.

The guilt was manifested in the eating (the Bible I read doesn't say Eve or Adam stole the fruit) of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The actual sin was in disobeying God. And that was done by the guile of the Serpent.

A curious turn of phrase, "... condemned them to be righteous." How would you construe that as condemnation?

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.

Again, that is your belief, unless you are just bringing it up to be contentious (and you as anyone else, are entitled to your own belief). But I haven't seen anywhere in the Bible that 'telling lies is a sin ... unless ...'

Granted, I may have also lied to Nazi soldiers, whether out of compassion, fear for myself and family, or both, it would still be a lie. And that would be a sin. But as a Christian, I can ask forgiveness for that sin, as I can for any sin.



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.

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

 

[TSDTexan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And take them to heaven when they die.


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

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

My determination is that he is biblically sound in doctrine.

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

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

It is a fair exegetical quote.


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

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

Pretty close to slander, I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

 

[TSDTexan]

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

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

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

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

 

[TSDTexan]

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

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

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

 

[O'Malley]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

...

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

Pretty close to slander, I think.

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

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

And you basically can't have both.

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

Quick ufc story.

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

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

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

See in my mind that is religion done wrong.

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

And you basically can't have both.

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

 

[O'Malley]

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

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

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

Not in the technical sense, but neither was Jesus.

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

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

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

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

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

Quick ufc story.

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

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

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

See in my mind that is religion done wrong.

Here is kind of an illustration of my point above.

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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