The Bible, Faith & Martial Arts

[oftheherd1]

What's wrong with it!?

You're kidding right!?

I would say that anyone of any religion who does feel that way surely would not have much faith in his/her religion.

If one truly believes in and has true faith in their religion there is no worry or concern about being swayed or a "proselytizer"

I was not talking about a person who was strong in their faith, but those new to their faith. And whether you are aware and acquainted with any, there are people who have accepted Christianity who do not start out strong in the faith. That is also commented on by the Apostle Paul. I can't speak for people of other faiths.

As for what is wrong with that approach: For one learning stops in the name of fear, ignorance and dogma and they justified an Inquisition like that a few years back.

I guess you are speaking about the Catholic inquisition, primarily in Spain, but also in other parts of Europe. It attacked most all non-Catholics. Many Christians were persecuted by that inquisition. I don't know that it was started in fear, perhaps ignorance and dogma.

So someone wants to teach Taiji, which is only associated to Taoism by the fact that some of its movements and fighting applications were based on the I Ching and they are a proselytizer!? A guy teaches Karate which is Japanese and thereby associated with Shinto so he is a proselytizer!?. Someone wants to teach yoga, which is only associated with Hinduism these days pretty much by country of origin only these days and they are a proselytizer!? Better Yet the Dalai Lama shows up just to give a speech and he is then also a proselytizer!? If someone of another religion (Catholicism, udaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Muslimism, any of the versions of Protestantism, etc) shows up at a "Christian" church just to take a look and starts talking to people...is that person a proselytizer?

It seems you have missed many posts in this thread that have made a point of stating many martial arts teachers do not teach religion with their martial arts. As to people who might show up at a Christian church and starts talking to people, that person being a proselytizer would depend on what he was saying, not his simple appearance nor even talking talking, unless that talking was in fact in some way proselytizing.

Thomas Merton was a Catholic and not only was he not afraid of other religions he studied them and wrote extensively about them and all it seemed to do was strengthen his faith.You may want to give him a read...or am I now being a proselytizer

I'm not familiar with Thomas Merton. But it sounds like at the time of his studies of other religions, he was already strong in his faith. The quoted link that started this thread seemed to be from a person who felt he was studying other religions or cults. That doesn't require you or I to agree with his comments on Martial Arts.

 

[oftheherd1]

No, you don't. You have a book (actually, it's a collection of short stories, and a lot of the ones intended for the anthology were left out by the editors) that makes lots of unsupported (and unsupportable) claims. Pretty much the same evidence provided by other religions.

Do you know why some books were chosen and some disregarded? On what do you base books intended for inclusion in the Bible were left out? That is, how do you know they were intended as Biblical books?

Unsupported and unsupportable claims? Can you give some examples? But you are correct that some religions have books they consider to be foundations for their religion. As a Christian I accept the Bible on faith. What is wrong about that?

 

[oftheherd1]

Yet they differ.

In what way?

 

[Touch Of Death]

What is wrong about that?

The grammar.

 

[oftheherd1]

We don't actually know that. We also do not know what the church took out of the stories allegedly written by eye witnesses, we do know it was highly edited by those who were not eye witnesses.. And we do not actually know if those that actually witnessed it wrote anything at all. Could be someone they talked to or told the stories too. Kind of like all the writings of Buddha, and I think Confucius and more than likely Lao Tzu

What church took out things in the Bible? I believe the KJV Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God, so I don't believe anything has been left out or added to those words God wants us to have.

We do know that Peter commented on some of Paul's writings. Would you consider that to be Peter witnessing anything about about Paul, who wrote things he witnessed about Jesus? Even if you would not, I accept it on faith. You may not.

 

[oftheherd1]

Sure we do. You choose to believe what you will. Paul says he saw what he saw and wrote what he wrote so you can believe it or not thats your choice

Paul, Matthew, Mark and John appear to have been witnesses. Luke may have been writing to someone of things he researched from eye witnesses.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Do you know why some books were chosen and some disregarded?

Do I know? Of course not, because in order to KNOW, I'd have to be both a mind reader and a medium. But I can speculate, based on what was left out. The gospels left out were likely left out because they didn't support the positions of the editors.

On what do you base books intended for inclusion in the Bible were left out? That is, how do you know they were intended as Biblical books?

Um... because they are attributed to biblical personas and are written about biblical topics?

Unsupported and unsupportable claims? Can you give some examples?

Sure. How about the claim that bats are mammals? That leprosy has something to do with being "unclean"? That disease is a punishment from god? That Jesus rose from the dead (making him either the first "documented" zombie or vampire...)? That Noah somehow managed to fit 2 of every species on earth in a wooden ship? That a god (with or without long white beard) exists?

But you are correct that some religions have books they consider to be foundations for their religion. As a Christian I accept the Bible on faith. What is wrong about that?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with that. It should be accepted on faith. That's what faith is. It's when people claim a factual proof for their faith that things get silly.

 

[ballen0351]

Do I know? Of course not, because in order to KNOW, I'd have to be both a mind reader and a medium. But I can speculate, based on what was left out. The gospels left out were likely left out because they didn't support the positions of the editors.



Um... because they are attributed to biblical personas and are written about biblical topics?



Sure. How about the claim that bats are mammals? That leprosy has something to do with being "unclean"? That disease is a punishment from god? That Jesus rose from the dead (making him either the first "documented" zombie or vampire...)? That Noah somehow managed to fit 2 of every species on earth in a wooden ship? That a god (with or without long white beard) exists?



Absolutely nothing is wrong with that. It should be accepted on faith. That's what faith is. It's when people claim a factual proof for their faith that things get silly.

I think we were warned but if your going to get rude about it we can continue this topic your a MOD after all so do you override the others? Just checking where we stand here snice Ive gotten infactions in the past for not following the Mods suggestions

 

[RTKDCMB]

Na we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus his life, his death and his resurrection

I think every cop and first year law student knows that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

 

[RTKDCMB]

That is what I have been saying about most major religions.

Do you have a religion? Does your religion not believe that way?

Although personally I do not believe in religion I respect that other people have their beliefs that I do not share and I do not have a problem them believing in them (except maybe Young Earth Creationists). The only problem I have with religion is what some people do with it, especially when they use religion as an excuse for the most despicable of acts, but that's not the religion's fault, it's the people's.

 

[Cirdan]

I saw great Thor riding his chariot across the sky yesterday, swinging mighty Mjolnir with crackling thunder and blessing us with rain. Tis`true I tell you!

It is still time to give up your silly desert religions, join the true faith where you get to party with valkyries for eternity and fight giants every day rising anew the next morning in Vallhalla with yesterday`s wounds gone. Beats sitting on a cloud playing the harp I tell you.

 

[oftheherd1]

Do I know? Of course not, because in order to KNOW, I'd have to be both a mind reader and a medium. But I can speculate, based on what was left out. The gospels left out were likely left out because they didn't support the positions of the editors.

Or read what has been written about the reasons some were not allowed in the canon. If they did not support the deity of God or Jesus, or did not support the teachings of God, they were left out.

Um... because they are attributed to biblical personas and are written about biblical topics?

Please see my answer above. By your definition, any book that makes any claim, however unsupportable, would have to be included in the canon when discovered.

Sure. How about the claim that bats are mammals? That leprosy has something to do with being "unclean"? That disease is a punishment from god? That Jesus rose from the dead (making him either the first "documented" zombie or vampire...)? That Noah somehow managed to fit 2 of every species on earth in a wooden ship? That a god (with or without long white beard) exists?

Interesting, I have always been told that bats are mammals. Are you being facetious in that answer? Also interesting that you say Jesus is a zombie or vampire. I can't imagine where you get such an idea. Noah is documented in the Bible. I don't understand everything in the Bible, but I figure that is because my mind isn't big enough or accepting enough. I do believe the Bible is the word of God, and that it has no errors. Otherwise I cannot know what in fact are the words of God. If you don't believe that, that is for you to decide.

Absolutely nothing is wrong with that. It should be accepted on faith. That's what faith is. It's when people claim a factual proof for their faith that things get silly.

Well, faith indeed does not require facts. If we had facts to explain everything, we wouldn't need faith for anything. But there are facts to assist us in accepting the Bible. I have been interested to read people who castigate Christians for having closed minds, yet insist in stating nothing that could in any way support any Christian belief. But in my belief, each person is accountable to themselves and in the end, to God.

I think it is that same closed mindedness that allows people to make judgments about martial arts being religions. Just my thoughts of course. No one else need think as I do.

 

[ballen0351]

I think every cop and first year law student knows that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

Naa not really. It depends on many factors. Length of incodent, type of incident, proximity to incident, severity of incident, number of incidents ect. Stranger eyewitness accounts or people not actually involved just watched an incident then yes. People personally involved and for longer periods of time then they are pretty good for the most part which is why they are still admissible. But what do I know I was only a Detective for many years and from the looks of things will be one again in a few weeks

 

[RTKDCMB]

Naa not really. It depends on many factors. Length of incodent, type of incident, proximity to incident, severity of incident, number of incidents ect. Stranger eyewitness accounts or people not actually involved just watched an incident then yes. People personally involved and for longer periods of time then they are pretty good for the most part which is why they are still admissible. But what do I know I was only a Detective for many years and from the looks of things will be one again in a few weeks

Sorry I meant to say "can be" instead of "are". You can imagine how admissible something that was witnessed 2000 or so years ago would be in a court today. Anyway, back to the OP.

 

[donnaTKD]

can we quit trashing the bible please - i'm not a religious person but i don't want to be reading and having to put up with these sorts of views being rammed in my face --- there's a time and a place in another thread for slagging off the bible and other religions if you so wish.

the OP talks expressly of martial arts being witchcraft - nowhere in that OP does it talk of bible's and everything in it and whether it be right or wrong it talks of MARTIAL ARTS BEING WITCHCRAFT !!!!!

either that or the OP needs to be retitled ASAP

 

[ballen0351]

Sorry I meant to say "can be" instead of "are".

yes I agree they can be but they are not as bad as people try to make them out to be if they were we would never be able to use them in court at all. In general they are fairly accurate

You can imagine how admissible something that was witnessed 2000 or so years ago would be in a court today. Anyway, back to the OP.

Well we couldnt try a case in court today all the witnesses are dead

 

[crushing]

can we quit trashing the bible please - i'm not a religious person but i don't want to be reading and having to put up with these sorts of views being rammed in my face --- there's a time and a place in another thread for slagging off the bible and other religions if you so wish.

the OP talks expressly of martial arts being witchcraft - nowhere in that OP does it talk of bible's and everything in it and whether it be right or wrong it talks of MARTIAL ARTS BEING WITCHCRAFT !!!!!

either that or the OP needs to be retitled ASAP

With all due respect, the Bible is not being trashed (and nobody has been vicious). Discussion of the Bible and the beliefs that come from the Bible are key to this thread and further understanding for everyone involved. We are in a sad state if any work of literature is above inspection and criticism. To see how this conversation is relevant you may want to revisit the OP that specifically mentions the Bible and check out the website from the OP that we are discussing.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT OCCULT, WITCHCRAFT, SEANCES, NEW AGE, ASTROLOGY, REINCARNATION, PSYCHIC POWER, CALLING SPIRITS, FORTUNE TELLING, OUIJA BOARD, CRYSTAL BALL, TAROT CARD, PALMISTRY, IDOL, DEMON

:asian:

 

[RTKDCMB]

Well we couldnt try a case in court today all the witnesses are dead

Good point.

 

[oftheherd1]

Catholic Bible and Protestant bible are not the same

Look up The Decree of Damasus

And these

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110610052642AAw3OC9

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080119103755AAi0QUJ

Folks, this is my last word on this the moderators want it back on topic so I shall no longer post on religious issues outside of the OP. I shall be ripping that apart later when I have time because there are more holes in that than Swiss cheese

I agree with that. And I agree that it should be the topic of a different thread. What I find mildly amusing is that I pointed out early on that there was no mention of witchcraft in what the OP quoted. But everyone keeps going with the the title of the thread. ;-)

 

[jks9199]

Folks,
These posts were moved from the thread Martial Arts Are Witchcraft, because the discussions about the legitimacy of various faiths and scriptures were off topic there. I hope that you'll continue to discuss these issues here; y'all have been doing a great job of discussing them without being disrespectful or uncivil, and I hope it continues.

jks9199
MT Asst. Administrator