Another View on Christian Martial Arts

[EternalRage]

http://www.bible-truths.org/tracts/martia~1.htm

Did a search, this wasn't posted yet to my knowledge. Just another view on martial arts and religion, taken from a rather extremist (in my opinion of course) religious viewpoint against the merging of the two.

I had been perusing the "Christian TKD" thread as well as starting the thread about morality and religion. I had been arguing that most of religion is based on interpretation, and that there is no way to tell who is right, who is wrong - this was in response to the "contradictions in the Bible" to which another member had replied that "there are no contradictions, just incorrect interpretations."

I believe there is no such thing as an incorrect interpretation, if you interpret Scripture one way, then that's how it speaks to you. May be different for you in ten years, ten months, or even ten minutes from when you read it, and it definitely differs from person to person. Some accept it, some don't, some accept it in different ways.

Anyway I'm posting this link so that others can see the various interpretations of Christianity and martial arts (and religion in general) and that not all are advocating a blend of the two.

[aikiMac]

I believe there is no such thing as an incorrect interpretation, if you interpret Scripture one way, then that's how it speaks to you.
Then the writer of that Scripture was not writing for the purpose of teaching anything.
I consider that a very odd view of Scripture.

I spotted a couple factual errors in that web page. I don't think the author knows what he's talking about, but, 'course, he probably thinks I'm a pawn of the devil.

[jonmonk]

Then the writer of that Scripture was not writing for the purpose of teaching anything.
I consider that a very odd view of Scripture.What if the purpose of the passage is to provoke thought and to act as a catalyst for self-development? Isn't it then possible for there to be a number of 'correct' interpretations?

[slipthejab]

I believe there is no such thing as an incorrect interpretation, if you interpret Scripture one way, then that's how it speaks to you. May be different for you in ten years, ten months, or even ten minutes from when you read it, and it definitely differs from person to person. Some accept it, some don't, some accept it in different ways.


hmm.. I would imagine that that when one considers the content and intent of a said article, work etc. that there are definitely wrong intepretations.

It doesn't matter whether this is religious material or writings regarding law or for that matter just about anyting else... it's crucial that for one to consider the intent of what's being said/written and the context in which is was written... that can be anything from the era, political environment to the mental state or ulterior motives of the author or authors.

To accept some kind of psuedo holistic approach by saying there are no incorrect interpetations is simplistic and diminishes the importance of intent and context. Without intent and context it might as well be chicken scratch.

[EternalRage]

hmm.. I would imagine that that when one considers the content and intent of a said article, work etc. that there are definitely wrong intepretations.

It doesn't matter whether this is religious material or writings regarding law or for that matter just about anyting else... it's crucial that for one to consider the intent of what's being said/written and the context in which is was written... that can be anything from the era, political environment to the mental state or ulterior motives of the author or authors.

To accept some kind of psuedo holistic approach by saying there are no incorrect interpetations is simplistic and diminishes the importance of intent and context. Without intent and context it might as well be chicken scratch.

Then there's no such thing as complete tolerance. Which is really nothing new with Christianity. "Love thy neighbor"? Sure, if he's Christian :Angel:

But I see your point. Then we're doomed to go on misinterpreting and fighting over it. Anyone watch the Simpsons this last Sunday on Fox? It was a rerun of the episode where Bart gets expelled out of Springfield Elementary School and he enrolls in a Catholic School (guest star Liam Neeson). At the show's closing, Bart gives a little speech about how the little things in Christianity don't matter as long as you get the big message. Everyone agrees and is happy.

Cut to a thousand years later. There's a battle field with two armies, comically drawn to imply that they've been worshipping Bart but they are fighting over whether his message was about "tolerance" or "understanding" (or something like that).

Pretty strong message from the longest running cartoon series on primetime.

[slipthejab]

LOL!
That sound classic! Will have to look that one up!
Seems to sum it up fairly accurately. :D

[aikiMac]

What if the purpose of the passage is to provoke thought and to act as a catalyst for self-development? Isn't it then possible for there to be a number of 'correct' interpretations?
Very excellent point.
So now we have to ask ourselves, "As to this here document that I'm holding and reading, what was the author's purpose?"

I sure hope the author stated his purpose within the document! :D

[jonmonk]

Very excellent point.
So now we have to ask ourselves, "As to this here document that I'm holding and reading, what was the author's purpose?"

I sure hope the author stated his purpose within the document! :DIf the author did state his purpose within the document then wouldn't it also form part of our catalyst?
If the author's purpose was 'spiritual' development of self then doesn't he win either way? :D

[aikiMac]

If the author did state his purpose within the document then wouldn't it also form part of our catalyst?
I would sure hope so! Golly! If an author set forth his purpose in writing a particular document, I would consider it quite dishonest for a reader to disregard that purpose and say, "Well, you know, this all means whatever you want it to mean." :eek:

[jonmonk]

I would sure hope so! Golly! If an author set forth his purpose in writing a particular document, I would consider it quite dishonest for a reader to disregard that purpose and say, "Well, you know, this all means whatever you want it to mean." :eek:This is true. I wonder though whether or not it's often a case of what someone needs it to mean. I had this thought buzzing round my head a couple of days ago. I was watching a TV show about a guy who was gay but wanted to be straight so he popped off to a place in the US somewhere where there was a Christian organisation who offered to help him.

I wasn't bothered about the ethics of it particularly, you know, whether people are born gay or whatever. What struck me though was that Christianity, in particular prayer, appeared to be used as a tool. It reminded me of a book I read a while back about Buddhism. It talked about Buddhism as a 'vehicle' where you jumped on, crossed some chasm or other but when you get to a certain point you no longer need it and can discard it. I'm told that believing yourself to be part of some bigger plan is an important concept used in 12 step plans for dealing with addiction too.

The guy in the programme resolved a lot of his issues. He wasn't straight (or a Christian) when he left but I think all in all he found it quite a positive experience.

[HandandFoot]

What if the purpose of the passage is to provoke thought and to act as a catalyst for self-development? Isn't it then possible for there to be a number of 'correct' interpretations?

I have certainly found the Bible to provoke thought and to act as a catalyst for self-development! I can even agree that there can be a number of correct interpretations. That is true of any form of communication.

The problem arises when those interpretations are contradictory to other passages. When that happens (in any piece of reference literature) one has to have an open mind with the willingness to allow the second passage to be a clarification of the first (not that it necessarily is). If you could interpret a statement more than one way but another on the same subject can only be interpreted one of those ways, shouldn't you conclude that there is only one valid conclusion?

And of course, context it CRUCIAL!

Prime example that has caused MUCH grief in the world!
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

If you left it there, the Bible CLEARLY says I can beat you for beating me!
but one verse later...

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[samurai1986]

the writer of that article is full of crap. My kung fu instructor is one of the most Catholic guys I know. Unfortunately writers like that give all Christians a bad name.

[Topher]

That is the biggest load of rubbish i've ever read :rolleyes: Claptrap!

EDIT: I've took a look around that site and here some more of there views on Martial Arts, a follow to the original: http://www.bible-truths.org/questions&answers/wrongorrightmartialarts.htm

And here's there views on boxing: http://www.bible-truths.org/questions&answers/isboxing.htm

And while were on the subject of this stupid web site read this (slightly off-topic):

Homosexuals and paedophiles are all the same in God’s eyes; they are evil. Homosexuals get the laws changed for their perverted ways, and the ministers help them and yet still call themselves Christians. The people who pass these laws are not Christians because Christians keep the word of God and do whatsoever God commands them.

http://www.bible-truths.org/questions&answers/homose%7E1.htm


This zealous type of Christianity paints a even worse picture for the religion.

[Yama Tombo]

I noticed that it mentioned yoga in there......

Here's a Jehovah's Witness Article about "Yoga and God":

http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/8/1a/article_01.htm

[Tetsujin]

I am not a extremist..nor Am I a fulfilled martial artist..my only opinion is religion and martial arts are two different things..

[jonmonk]

Ooh, I missed this one while I was on holiday.

BTW, this is not meant to be a pop at Christianity. There are a lot of amazing Christians out there who do a lot of good in the world and I think that's fab :Angel:

The problem arises when those interpretations are contradictory to other passages.... If you could interpret a statement more than one way but another on the same subject can only be interpreted one of those ways, shouldn't you conclude that there is only one valid conclusion?
I would if that were the case but if that were true then there would only be one true form of Christianity and everyone would follow it wouldn't there?

Prime example that has caused MUCH grief in the world!
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

If you left it there, the Bible CLEARLY says I can beat you for beating me!
but one verse later...

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
As I'm sure you are aware, Matthew is probably referencing the Old Testament, Exodus 21, where the context is pretty clear ;)

There are a number of middle Eastern religions that share the book of Exodus and obviously Judaism is one of them. It seems to me that Matthew is deliberately rebelling against the Jewish establishment / view here and, here in the Bible, he appears to me to be saying that he thinks that what has been written previously is wrong. So hang on a sec, if Matthew disagrees with a book that ends up in the Bible then what chance does anyone have of finding the "correct" interpretation now?

[Stolenbjorn]

I might miss the topic completely here, but I'd just like to mention that the oldest martial arts-manual (that has survived) from Europe is the I-33 -manual that one suspects is written by a monk in Germany around 1290 -That's as cristian martial arts as you get it! :Angel:

[Alex_JHH]

Did he go to hell? :p

[lordazazel]

There are some interesting viewpoints here on interpretation of Scripture. :) Before I give my two pence worth, I am not religious. AT ALL. I do not believe in "Gods" or "Demons" and therefore do not follow the path laid out by any organised religion. The closest I have to a belief system is the Nietsche school of thought. Say no more....

Nevertheless, I find the various interpretations of Scriptures and religious texts to be an interesting point of discussion. Many academics cite the contradictions of the Bible as the reason why Judeo/Christian ideology is, at best, misguided. Others look at the fact that it is a propaganda tool, unrivalled by any other in the history of Humankind.

My thoughts? I don't particularly have a problem with the Bible's tendency to contradict itself. After all, it's initial purpose was to confound and confuse. (After all, what better way to instill creative thinking in people, than to present them with a collection of riddles and fairytales? :cool: ) However, my real objection is the fact that it remains such a potent propaganda tool, despite the fact that it's initial purpose has long since been completely exhausted.

[Jesh]

Martial Arts are the Devil !!! :D

No, but seriously the article isn't that good anyway. I bet the author never tried MA, or barely even knew what he was talking about.

I mean:

KARATE – Meaning ‘Open Hand’, the ‘CHOP’ can kill, a victim instantly!

and...

The man who was responsible for the development of Judo. (Dr Jigoro Kano) found a school in Tokyo called the KODOKAN which means "The Way". This final insult in the face of the Son of God and Saviour of the world JESUS CHRIST who said, "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME" (John 14:6).

doesn't really sound impressive, now does it ???

[Gryphon Hall]

... doesn't really sound impressive, now does it ???

Nope... doesn't sound impressive at all...

[polecat63]

Don't know who wrote that crap, bu he ain't no Christian. ANyone that twists the Bible just to prove some warped idea about any subject is ,at best, a moron. Plus, most of what he quotes from the Bible deosn't have anything to do with the point he's trying to make. Sad, very sad.

[polecat63]

Ooh, I missed this one while I was on holiday.

BTW, this is not meant to be a pop at Christianity. There are a lot of amazing Christians out there who do a lot of good in the world and I think that's fab :Angel:


I would if that were the case but if that were true then there would only be one true form of Christianity and everyone would follow it wouldn't there?


As I'm sure you are aware, Matthew is probably referencing the Old Testament, Exodus 21, where the context is pretty clear ;)

There are a number of middle Eastern religions that share the book of Exodus and obviously Judaism is one of them. It seems to me that Matthew is deliberately rebelling against the Jewish establishment / view here and, here in the Bible, he appears to me to be saying that he thinks that what has been written previously is wrong. So hang on a sec, if Matthew disagrees with a book that ends up in the Bible then what chance does anyone have of finding the "correct" interpretation now?


Actually, Jesus said that. He's upping the ante here again. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's that Jesus is saying the old way just isn't a high enough standard. That your faith must be complete and that you must trust that God will actually do what he says, and take care of you.

[polecat63]

There are some interesting viewpoints here on interpretation of Scripture. :) Before I give my two pence worth, I am not religious. AT ALL. I do not believe in "Gods" or "Demons" and therefore do not follow the path laid out by any organised religion. The closest I have to a belief system is the Nietsche school of thought. Say no more....

Nevertheless, I find the various interpretations of Scriptures and religious texts to be an interesting point of discussion. Many academics cite the contradictions of the Bible as the reason why Judeo/Christian ideology is, at best, misguided. Others look at the fact that it is a propaganda tool, unrivalled by any other in the history of Humankind.

My thoughts? I don't particularly have a problem with the Bible's tendency to contradict itself. After all, it's initial purpose was to confound and confuse. (After all, what better way to instill creative thinking in people, than to present them with a collection of riddles and fairytales? :cool: ) However, my real objection is the fact that it remains such a potent propaganda tool, despite the fact that it's initial purpose has long since been completely exhausted.


Could you share some of these contardiction with us? Not trying to be an A-hole, I really would like to know what you think are contradictions.

[Gryphon Hall]

Don't know who wrote that crap, bu he ain't no Christian. ANyone that twists the Bible just to prove some warped idea about any subject is ,at best, a moron. Plus, most of what he quotes from the Bible deosn't have anything to do with the point he's trying to make. Sad, very sad.

I mostly agree with you, man. Another possibility that whoever wrote that is Christian, just that he/she is narrowminded and not well-informed. Christians like that give Christianity (and other Christians) a bad rap.

Could you share some of these contardiction with us? Not trying to be an A-hole, I really would like to know what you think are contradictions.

I don't want to discourage you, man, but this question has been asked before and it has resulted in a lot of flame-baiting and flame throwing. It all boils down to one's word over another—who trusts whom. The side that "seems" more credible "seems" to win out, and unfortunately a lot of Christians on this forum were either narrow-minded or were not so well-informed (doesn't mean they weren't sincere, since most of them were; like God's people in Romans 10:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=10&verse=2&version=9;15;31;47)) and, as a result, made a lot of unfortunate and unguarded statements that made the rest of us look like "A-holes". Just search for any discussion about God, Christianity or Jesus and you'll see what I mean (1 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26343), 2 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24205), 3 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19204), & 4 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5387)).

Sometimes, silence is golden (which I continually remind myself in my signature, based on Proverbs 17:27-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2017:27-28;&version=9;15;31;47;)).

[polecat63]

I don't want to discourage you, man, but this question has been asked before and it has resulted in a lot of flame-baiting and flame throwing. It all boils down to one's word over another—who trusts whom. The side that "seems" more credible "seems" to win out, and unfortunately a lot of Christians on this forum were either narrow-minded or were not so well-informed (doesn't mean they weren't sincere, since most of them were; like God's people in Romans 10:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=10&verse=2&version=9;15;31;47)) and, as a result, made a lot of unfortunate and unguarded statements that made the rest of us look like "A-holes". Just search for any discussion about God, Christianity or Jesus and you'll see what I mean (1 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26343), 2 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24205), 3 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19204), & 4 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5387)).

Sometimes, silence is golden (which I continually remind myself in my signature, based on Proverbs 17:27-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2017:27-28;&version=9;15;31;47;)).


LOL!! Point well stated, and taken.
Ragards

[jonmonk]

Actually, Jesus said that..Well, Matthew says Jesus says that anyway.

He's upping the ante here again. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's that Jesus is saying the old way just isn't a high enough standard. That your faith must be complete and that you must trust that God will actually do what he says, and take care of you.I think it is very much open to interpretation because I interpret the passage as an open disagreement with the Old Testament and you seem not to. I reread the whole of Matthew 5 but found nothing in there about God taking care of you.

The passage in Matthew looks very much to me as though we're being told that if we really want to act in the morally good or 'godly' way if you like, we need to overcome the human desire for revenge and act with understanding and love. Sounds like good advice actually, perhaps we can agree on that at least. :)

There's also a bit of a pop at the establishment in there too which is carried on in Matthew 6 where he appears to criticises religious leaders for disappearing up their own backsides. I sometimes wonder who he'd say these sorts of things to today.

[aikiMac]

There's also a bit of a pop at the establishment in there too which is carried on in Matthew 6 where he appears to criticises religious leaders for disappearing up their own backsides.
Indeed, the "Sermon on the Mount," as it's called, is an open criticism of the religious leaders of the day. You get that not so much from the gospel text itself (though indeed chap 6 suggests it), but from the written commentaries on the OT that the leaders were teaching back then. "You have heard it said ..." is a reference to something the leaders were popularly teaching. Everything that Jesus taught in that sermon is in the OT. Rather than say it was OT versus OT, I think we should say it was greedy people's spin on the OT versus Jesus' spin on the OT. And of course, we take the position that Jesus was God, so his spin on the OT is the right one.

[Gryphon Hall]

I think it is very much open to interpretation because I interpret the passage as an open disagreement with the Old Testament and you seem not to. I reread the whole of Matthew 5 but found nothing in there about God taking care of you.

The passage in Matthew looks very much to me as though we're being told that if we really want to act in the morally good or 'godly' way if you like, we need to overcome the human desire for revenge and act with understanding and love. Sounds like good advice actually, perhaps we can agree on that at least. :)

There's also a bit of a pop at the establishment in there too which is carried on in Matthew 6 where he appears to criticises religious leaders for disappearing up their own backsides. I sometimes wonder who he'd say these sorts of things to today.

No, actually, it isn't open to much interpretation. polecat63 and aikiMac both have the right interpretations: Jesus wasn't disagreeing with the OT, but he was criticizing the establishment for not being worthy of it's standards and teaching the rest of the populace their skewed take on morality. And it is in Matthew 5, alright:

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:16-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:16-20;&version=9;76;9;49;47;)


However, jonmonk, you are right that the passages about God taking care of us is not technically in chapter 5; it is in chapter 6. Still, since they are both part of the Sermon on the Mount, they are contextually connected—one leads to the other.

The very last verses of Matthew 7 I find extremely insightful. If there had been centuries of "spin" on what God actually requires as the conditions for righteousness, Jesus (if He is God, and I know that some of you don't believe that He is, or that there is a "God" at all, but for the purpose of argument) was setting the record straight. He didn't start or end by quoting anybody—it's as if the entire OT was written by Him and He was explaining the essence of it that a lot of people had got wrong, as if He had the right (cf. Matthew 7:24-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:24-29;&version=9;76;9;49;47;)). And I believe that He did have that right.

Pax mate! :)

[jonmonk]

Rather than say it was OT versus OT, I think we should say it was greedy people's spin on the OT versus Jesus' spin on the OT. And of course, we take the position that Jesus was God, so his spin on the OT is the right one.Yeah, I can get that. Kind of like a let's get Judaism back to where it's meant to be sort of a deal. Back to basics perhaps. The only thing that still makes me think hmm is that the 'eye for an eye' bit in Exodus 21 seems pretty clear cut regardless of what the religious teachers were preaching at the time of Jesus. So I'm still thinking that there is disagreement with the OT there. There's something about this whole upping the ante, upping the standards business that just doesn't sit right with me. Not entirely sure why.

Incidentally, I like what he says, I think it's good stuff.

[aikiMac]

The only thing that still makes me think hmm is that the 'eye for an eye' bit in Exodus 21 seems pretty clear cut regardless of what the religious teachers were preaching at the time of Jesus. So I'm still thinking that there is disagreement with the OT there. There's something about this whole upping the ante, upping the standards business that just doesn't sit right with me. Not entirely sure why.
This little part of the sermon bugged me for a long time. I think I got it now. Most people were abusing the law, and most people missed the big picture. Isaiah chap 1 is an example of missing the big picture. Basically, Isaiah is a one long rant about how screwed up the people were. They were pretty much doing everything wrong. In chap 1, Isaiah as spokesman for God nails them really, really hard. When he gets to the part about what they should be doing, you would expect him to go into the Ten Commandments or maybe something from Leviticus. Instead, he says, “take care of orphans, and take care of widows.” (verse 17, paraphrased)

That floors me.

So, if I take care of orphans and take care of widows, I will be doing the whole will of God as revealed in the Old Testament. But wait, how can a person do such a thing except by having great love for people, huh? Is this not really a statement about loving other people?

That really floors me. Micah 6:8 isn’t far off from what Isaiah was getting at.

Fast forward now to Jesus’ sermon in Matthew. Verses 5:38-end are really about forgiveness, and forgiveness is really a love thing. So, maybe this thing about “turning the other cheek” and “going the extra mile” ain’t so crazy, or so foreign, after all.

Just a thought.

Reminds me of the third level of love discussed in the Jet Li movie “Hero.”

[kiaiki]

Intolerance seems to pervade 'God' worshipping religions, whilst their founders spoke of compassion. As all such perversity is merely an appearance to mind, it is up to each of us to treat intolerance with equanimity and forego the worldly pleasure of retaliation and revenge. IMHO Aikido works with all religions as a defensive art which seeks to neutralise an attack without damaging the attacker unnecessarily - a good principle for all MA practitioners to follow? :)

[jonmonk]

Intolerance seems to pervade 'God' worshipping religions, whilst their founders spoke of compassion.I hear what you're saying. It echoes a lot of what I've been thinking too but does intolerance really pervade 'God' worshipping religions or does it just pervade man regardless of religious belief?

I think that there can be a lot of confusion here. If religion is simply a concept then it must be incapable of compassion or intolerance. If religion is a set of principles and teachings then it has to be put into practice by humans, kinda added to the stew pot with all the other experiences and emotional upheaval that a human gathers during the course of a lifetime. So I wonder, when a human acts with intolerance or without compassion, how can we really know the source of these actions? Can it be fairly blamed on religion?

Aikimac, I'm still thinking about what you said. I wanted to read the passages you mentioned first. Cheers.