Religion and Martial arts

[Bruce_Lee93]

Hey everyone. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and I also train in Karate. I've been wondering, how do you reconcile western religious beliefs with the elements of Taoism and Buddhism that you so frequently find in the martial arts? Do the different belief systems clash? Or is there a happy medium? Any thoughts or comments welcome.

[Hatamoto]

I made a thread asking something similar on a christian message board.. There are some who think training to fight is a bad thing in itself, then you get people who follow Mr Robertson and think internal power is inhaling demon spirit.
I've not studied Taoism or Buddhism to a deep level but from what I've read so far there isn't anything that really clashes. Taoism goes for an impersonal force that permeates everything. Only difference with that is God is a personified force. But I find most of the ideas of Buddhism, such as right action, right thought, ... I forget the rest :$ sit in quite neatly with christian doctrine. It's all about bettering yourself and being better to others.
I may be ignorant or narrowminded for saying this but I honestly can't see anything that would clash enough for a religious person to abhor it. Anyone who does so in my eyes has their mind made up beforehand.
(for the record I'm an ex-Baptist but try to live up to ideas put forward in buddhism)

[Fish Of Doom]

martial arts have no religious elements. the people that made them and practiced them in their countries of origins were religious, and had the values of their religions imprinted into their societies (similar to how christianity has influenced the western world), giving the impression that martial arts have religious overtones.

martial arts are just methods of hurting people and of developing the skills necessary to do it correctly.

[old palden]

, how do you reconcile western religious beliefs with the elements of Taoism and Buddhism that you so frequently find in the martial arts?

As the Tao Te Ching says, "No fight, no blame."

In asking for reconciliation you're assuming that there's some inherent conflict. If you're experiencing conflict, know that it exists only in your mind. If someone else is telling you there's conflict, know that it exists only in their mind.

Practice your martial art, and be a good person. Simple.


.

[47MartialMan]

Hey everyone. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and I also train in Karate. I've been wondering, how do you reconcile western religious beliefs with the elements of Taoism and Buddhism that you so frequently find in the martial arts? Do the different belief systems clash? Or is there a happy medium? Any thoughts or comments welcome.

This same question is one to examine why would Buddhist monks of the Ch'an study (per ex Shaolin) ever take upon a fighting method?

I have discussed this with people of many different relgious faiths.

It boils down to violence, and the action of. Although I know alot of people from various religious faiths whom are police officers, hunters, military, etc.

[Draven Azropht]

Hey everyone. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and I also train in Karate. I've been wondering, how do you reconcile western religious beliefs with the elements of Taoism and Buddhism that you so frequently find in the martial arts? Do the different belief systems clash? Or is there a happy medium? Any thoughts or comments welcome.

I wasn't aware there was a conflict, I personally don't believe in Christian pacifism, Jesus Christ used violence and was a pretty intimidating individual by several counts in the bible. I don't think being able to use violence is self-defense and beingintentionally violent to push an agenda are the same things.

This same question is one to examine why would Buddhist monks of the Ch'an study (per ex Shaolin) ever take upon a fighting method?

There was something on the discovery channel about military strategy and so on. Anyway, one of the interesting things about it, in reference to the Shaolin matter, was that exception leaders, soldiers & generals whose knowledge was valuable but they had disobeied their rulers were some times ordered to become monks in isolated monostaries to "keep them on the back burner" so to speak.

As such a variant of less then passive, ideology was developed and it became and area of study among the former soldiers in such monostaries attracting others to the "warrior monk" ideology. In fact according the DC, many of these "warrior monks" being disposed soldiers and officers would practice their military training as "exercise forms" & disguise their discussion of strategy as "philosophy." Take the conventional Eastern Military Stand of 5-tactics or 5-strategies & compare it to the idea of 5-animals kung-fu...

I thought it was interesting and worth mentioning. Its my stand that mankind has a way to pervert any idea to suit themselves.

[Langenschwert]

Hey everyone. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and I also train in Karate. I've been wondering, how do you reconcile western religious beliefs with the elements of Taoism and Buddhism that you so frequently find in the martial arts? Do the different belief systems clash? Or is there a happy medium? Any thoughts or comments welcome.

I follow Western religious beliefs, namely Norse paganism. Western, not Christian. And I train MA. Needless to say, no conflict there. The ancient Norse had no problem with asskicking, and their spiritual beliefs were rather on the mystical side, sharing at least one deity with Vedic Hinduism: Thor = Indra. So it's not an issue for me.

If I were a Christian, no biggie either. Remeber the code of Chivalry, which is essentially a code of conduct for knights (who were pretty badass martial artists, AND Catholics). No apparent conflict between Christianity and judiciously applied violence there... in fact it's a fusion of Christianity and Germanic tribal martial culture.

It's entirely possible to follow Buddhist teachings while being a Christian, at least that's what I'm told. Don't the Christians say that Jesus came to take your soul, not your brain? Use your gods-given mind and work out your salvation like Paul said in one of his letters. Test everything. Remember that the Church is not God, and cannot come between you and the Divine unless you wish it to.

Best regards,

-Mark

[koyo]

Twice strong is he who has his battle just.

Thrice strong is he who gets his blow in furst. (scottish spelling)

[Bruce_Lee93]

If I were a Christian, no biggie either. Remeber the code of Chivalry, which is essentially a code of conduct for knights (who were pretty badass martial artists, AND Catholics). No apparent conflict between Christianity and judiciously applied violence there... in fact it's a fusion of Christianity and Germanic tribal martial culture.

-Mark[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting point, but what I meant was do the actual belief systems that are inherent in some styles of martial arts, such as Kung Fu and Aikido, clash with western religion, especally christianity?

[Bruce_Lee93]

I wasn't aware there was a conflict, I personally don't believe in Christian pacifism, Jesus Christ used violence and was a pretty intimidating individual by several counts in the bible. I don't think being able to use violence is self-defense and beingintentionally violent to push an agenda are the same things.
.

Where was Jesus violent? Just asking.

[Ranzan]

^ one example, sees temple being used as market, goes berserk on some priest ass. Read through the bible a couple times violence is pretty evident God, Jesus, and their followers.

[Bruce_Lee93]

Okay, fair enough. Jesus did throw the moneylenders out of the temple. But, it's the only time he gets violent, and it's only because they are defiling His Father's house. Also, nowhere in the Acts of the Apostles do they get violent....Go figure.

[old palden]

Matthew 10:34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Go figure.


.

[Fish Of Doom]

didn't an apostle cut off a guy's ear with a sword? three gospels mention it, afaik

[Spinmaster]

My first comment is that I agree with Fish... religion is not an inherent part of martial arts. Aikido is known as a "religious martial arts" for example, simply because Ueshiba was religious.

Secondly, I will admit that some Christians have the unfortunate impression that martial arts are "pagan" because of the eastern lore that often surrounds them in popular culture. Also, as previous posters mentioned, some attempt to claim that violence of any kind is wrong... however as also mentioned, this is easily debunked by the words and actions of Jesus himself.

I myself initially always had an attraction to the arts, but also had the impression that they were "pagan". When I actually started looking into them, visiting schools, talking to people, etc. I discovered this was by no means the case.
There are certain customs I prefer not to take part in, that are still commonly observed in dojos today. In my school I don't have to worry about these, because the Sensei is Christian as well -with other teachers, I have respectfully asked to be allowed to not participate in this part of class. One Karate teacher was slightly offended, upset that I would "insinuate there is something non-Christian about her class". On the other hand, the subject came up with a visiting Aikido teacher, and he said "If you were in my dojo and explained this to me, I would respect your beliefs. That is part of what Aikido means to me."
Other people don't share my opinions on certain beliefs and practices, and this is their right.[1] I merely ask that they respect my choice to abstain. Everyone is different... some are very gracious, others will be insistent. In the latter case, I guess I'd just find somewhere else to train.

Bruce_Lee93: check out Luke 22:36 "... and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one". What do you think he expected them to do with those swords? ;) There are plenty other verses as well along the same line.

[1]I've heard some folks say "you can't expect to pick and choose what parts of class you want to take and leave!!" However, I would argue that what I choose not to take part in are non-essential trappings... I do not refuse to spar, to roll, etc. I've heard of folks who preferred not to grade... they didn't really see the need for a colored belt. If this can be respected, I see no difference in what I ask.

[Spinmaster]

It's entirely possible to follow Buddhist teachings while being a Christian, at least that's what I'm told.

Good post Mark. :cool: I agree with what much of what you said, there's merely a little point I'd like to make regarding the quoted sentence. The principles of "don't hurt each other", etc. (to put it simply) are obviously part of Christianity as well. However there's quite a difference in the more "spiritual" beliefs, such as afterlife, reincarnation, etc.

[Draven Azropht]

I don't violence is outlawed by the christian faith; least not where I stand but, I think needless violence is outlawed. Personally I think almost every religion agrees on principles of moral frame work & for me thats enough. Sure you have those odd ball "Satanist" & who give mainstream Satanists a bad name but thats an extreme. I tend to believe that a personals "spitiual beliefs" are a personal matter.

[47MartialMan]

I wasn't aware there was a conflict, I personally don't believe in Christian pacifism, Jesus Christ used violence and was a pretty intimidating individual by several counts in the bible. I don't think being able to use violence is self-defense and beingintentionally violent to push an agenda are the same things.



There was something on the discovery channel about military strategy and so on. Anyway, one of the interesting things about it, in reference to the Shaolin matter, was that exception leaders, soldiers & generals whose knowledge was valuable but they had disobeied their rulers were some times ordered to become monks in isolated monostaries to "keep them on the back burner" so to speak.

As such a variant of less then passive, ideology was developed and it became and area of study among the former soldiers in such monostaries attracting others to the "warrior monk" ideology. In fact according the DC, many of these "warrior monks" being disposed soldiers and officers would practice their military training as "exercise forms" & disguise their discussion of strategy as "philosophy." Take the conventional Eastern Military Stand of 5-tactics or 5-strategies & compare it to the idea of 5-animals kung-fu...

I thought it was interesting and worth mentioning. Its my stand that mankind has a way to pervert any idea to suit themselves.

Yeah, you kinda opened up a can of dead worms with the Violent Jesus

But I did enjoy reading your response of Warrior Monks.

You mention DC, who or what is that?

Also, please, may I ask that you PM me some on your links or references upon this matter

(Not the Violent Jesus references)

[Bruce_Lee93]

LOL. that's true. Just to answer what someone said about Peter pulling a sword on a guard, when He did that Jesus rebuked him and healed the guard. "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" ring any bells?

Anyway, its kinda funny how this thread's turned into a religious debate, rather than a discussion on religion in martial arts. Can we get back on topic PLEASE??:cry:

[47MartialMan]

LOL. that's true. Just to answer what someone said about Peter pulling a sword on a guard, when He did that Jesus rebuked him and healed the guard. "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" ring any bells?

Anyway, its kinda funny how this thread's turned into a religious debate, rather than a discussion on religion in martial arts. Can we get back on topic PLEASE??:cry:


Well, given the thread title;
Religion and Martial Arts,
I think it is on topic....IMHO

[Fish Of Doom]

nevermind the fact that it was already stated more than once that martial arts have no connection to religion beyond the personal beliefs of their founders and/or the influence of local religions on the cultures where those martial arts originate. they are two separate concepts. what you should be dealing with is reconciling the tenets of your faith with the inevitable consequences of you taking part of a physical altercation, never mind the fact that you're training so that you can hurt someone in one. you don't become a better person by learning to punch, you do it through effort. martial arts are simply an activity that is particularly suited to it.

[47MartialMan]

nevermind the fact that it was already stated more than once that martial arts have no connection to religion beyond the personal beliefs of their founders and/or the influence of local religions on the cultures where those martial arts originate. they are two separate concepts. what you should be dealing with is reconciling the tenets of your faith with the inevitable consequences of you taking part of a physical altercation, never mind the fact that you're training so that you can hurt someone in one. you don't become a better person by learning to punch, you do it through effort. martial arts are simply an activity that is particularly suited to it.

Nevermind that most wars were started in the name of religion and people will train to and kill another with different religious beliefs........:rolleyes:

[slipthejab]

Want violence?!

Check out how good 'ol Moses was kickin' ass and taking names back in the day... and when some of his own started to worship the golden calf... holy hell broke loose and he unleashed a blood bath. Think ZZ Top meets Bosnian Serb militant.

Yet he is held up as part and parcel with Christianity.

Moses - Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Torah
"I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy."

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to possess, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, destroy them utterly. Make no covenant with them and show no favor to them" (Deuteronomy 7:1-2).

"When you approach a city to fight it, offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, all the people found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, besiege it. When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, kill all the men in it. Take as booty only the women, children, animals, and all that is in the city, all its spoils. Use the spoils of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you... Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Do not leave alive anything that breathes" (Deuteronomy 20:10-17).

"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But spare for yourselves all virgin maidens" (Numbers 31:17-18).

"I will send my terror in front of you... you shall utterly demolish them and break their pillars in pieces" (Exodus 23: 23-24, 27).



Fast forward to modern day for another form of violence... look at the decades (and most likely centuries) of sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy... the consistent institutionalized cover up of it by the Roman Catholic church up to it's highest echelons...

Violence isn't somehow irreconcilable with Christianity or in particular the Catholic church... it's part and parcel with it.

Even to this day the Roman Catholic church still wont come clean about their sordid history of sexual abuse of children. Go figure. What's a bit of eastern mystical mumbo jumbo after your busy banging the children of your clergy.

They can get stuffed.

[Blade96]

Hey everyone. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and I also train in Karate. I've been wondering, how do you reconcile western religious beliefs with the elements of Taoism and Buddhism that you so frequently find in the martial arts? Do the different belief systems clash? Or is there a happy medium? Any thoughts or comments welcome.

I know sometimes they clash. my sandan told me of a story of some religious guy who came to the dojo and wanted to train in shotokan. (this was before I joined.) anyway he was of some religion where they didnt have bowing. He wouldnt bow to the sensei. So the sensei told him he couldn't train there.

[YouKnowWho]

No matter what religion that you believe, save good guys lifes and help bad guys to go to hell is always a good thing.

[47MartialMan]

I know sometimes they clash. my sandan told me of a story of some religious guy who came to the dojo and wanted to train in shotokan. (this was before I joined.) anyway he was of some religion where they didnt have bowing. He wouldnt bow to the sensei. So the sensei told him he couldn't train there.
Where or what country was the Dojo located?

No matter what religion that you believe, save good guys lifes and help bad guys to go to hell is always a good thing.
I like that...the problem could sometimes be; who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.....:eek:

[YouKnowWho]

the problem could sometimes be; who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.....:eek:
It reminds me someone once said, "You may not cheat your friend for $10,000, how about $10,000,000 or $10,000,000,000?"

[47MartialMan]

It reminds me someone once said, "You may not cheat your friend for $10,000, how about $10,000,000 or $10,000,000,000?"

They maybe ok as long as you leave them with the clothes on their back and give them a free meal, and tell them you did it in the name of ______(insert deity here)

[Draven Azropht]

Yeah, you kinda opened up a can of dead worms with the Violent Jesus

But I did enjoy reading your response of Warrior Monks.

You mention DC, who or what is that?

Also, please, may I ask that you PM me some on your links or references upon this matter

(Not the Violent Jesus references)

DC is discovery channel, but there has also been some stuff on the history channel to.

[pmosiun]

All religion are hypocrites, just look at the crusade, the Christians, the Muslims, they all kill each other in the name of their sky daddy.

[Draven Azropht]

All religion are hypocrites, just look at the crusade, the Christians, the Muslims, they all kill each other in the name of their sky daddy.

Actually, thats not quite true... But, openning up that debate would just not be worth it. The crusades wasn't about theology it was about politics.

[Gary - Enshin]

In our dojo (in no particular order) Anglican Catholic Buddhist Muslim Sikh Hindu Atheist, and everything from communist to BNP.

IMO there's no place in the dojo for religion or politics. If we mentioned either we'd be bound to upset someone or other.

Gary

[Langenschwert]

That's an interesting point, but what I meant was do the actual belief systems that are inherent in some styles of martial arts, such as Kung Fu and Aikido, clash with western religion, especally christianity?

I would posit that if medieval Europeans could reconcile martial culture and Christianity, then whatever you've got to do to reconcile Asian philosophy and Christianity (which is actually a middle eastern religion originally, not a "Western" one) shouldn't be that big a deal. :D

Best regards,

-Mark

[pauli]

Actually, thats not quite true... But, openning up that debate would just not be worth it. The crusades wasn't about theology it was about politics.

theology IS politics.

[WhitePanda]

Are we talking the hippie dippie love and forgive transgressions religions? Or the hell hath no fury fire and brimstone religions?

[Draven Azropht]

theology IS politics.

Well when I say theology i mean faith not the fact that politics often cloaks itself in theology.

[Bruce_Lee93]

I agree with Draven

[shuyun3]

if it gets down to it you can say martial arts is a matter of moves. and moves are amoral.

for the longest time i've self trained because of that mindset (not mine my mother's). After she saw how impossible it is for her to stop me learning the "moves" she let it go.

David, and Joshua were martial artists (not maybe in the eastern sense but they knew the arts of war, war being Mar(s)tial.

Psalm 144:1 "Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle." Sounds just about right.

There are Christian soldiers (and i don't mean the song) and there are an entire array of non religious martial arts as pointed. Krav Maga, FMA, Boxing, HEMA.

[Blade96]

Where or what country was the Dojo located?




Here....in Newfoundland, Canada.

But that story was according to my Sandan. He told me this.

[47MartialMan]

Here....in Newfoundland, Canada.

But that story was according to my Sandan. He told me this.


The reason I asked, if the event took place outside of Asia, then what was requested as a custom, like a bow, should not be enforced in another land.

The instructor should have respected the religious rights of others. IMHO



On the other hand...when visiting someone's "house", and they dont like people to walk in wearing shoes.........

[Bruce_Lee93]

Hey people, just to change the topic again, I recently read about a Japanese martial arts association that was founded by a Catholic. Anyone remember the name, cos I sure as Hell can't

[47MartialMan]

Hey people, just to change the topic again, I recently read about a Japanese martial arts association that was founded by a Catholic. Anyone remember the name, cos I sure as Hell can't


Did you also know a earlier Karate style had a swatiska as a logo?

[Spinmaster]

Fast forward to modern day for another form of violence... look at the decades (and most likely centuries) of sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy... the consistent institutionalized cover up of it by the Roman Catholic church up to it's highest echelons...

Violence isn't somehow irreconcilable with Christianity or in particular the Catholic church... it's part and parcel with it.

Even to this day the Roman Catholic church still wont come clean about their sordid history of sexual abuse of children. Go figure. What's a bit of eastern mystical mumbo jumbo after your busy banging the children of your clergy.



I find it interesting that your focus is on the fact that the abusers were clergy. If they had been McDonalds cooks would that have made a difference[1]?

Was what they did horrible? Yes. Was it especially hypocritical given their station and claims? Yes. Does that mean all religious teachers/people are wicked? No. Just like if a fast food cook had done it, it wouldn't mean everyone who works at a fast food place is evil.

Any time a person or group of people hold power, there is a temptation to abuse that power. Look at kings and dictators (and yes, religious leaders) throughout history.

If one wants true Christianity, one needs to look to Jesus. Because a lot of "Christians" are a heckuva lot different from the example He set.

This is one of the reasons I don't like to claim a denomination or such anymore... I'm not Baptist, or Catholic, or Apostolic. I'm Christian. What I believe is between God and me, not for a leader of a church or organization dictate.

[1] Or perhaps for an example that might hit closer to actual examples, a teacher? I'm sure we've all heard at least one report of a pedophile school teacher... But I doubt anyone would argue that it's the vocation of teaching that causes the problem.

[Griffin]

Did you also know a earlier Karate style had a swatiska as a logo?

The swastika itself was around way before the nazi's, but ofcourse it held a different meaning altogether.

Ive seen it in India also for egsample, it aint worth going into but it isnt origionaly nazi symbology, they used it is all.

[Gary - Enshin]

LOL

Poor example.

As far as I know McDonalds cooks don't lecture the masses on how to live a moral life.

Gary

[Draven Azropht]

Actually the term swatiska came from the Nazi's but the symbol itself is used by Buddhists to mark places of sactuary & was used by some pagans as a symbol of time & the wind.

[Langenschwert]

Actually the term swatiska came from the Nazi's but the symbol itself is used by Buddhists to mark places of sactuary & was used by some pagans as a symbol of time & the wind.

It was an important symbol to the Norse as well, symbolizing either the sun wheel or Mjolnir being hurled through the air. It is still in use by some modern Heathens, some of whom wish to "rehabilitate" it so it can someday be used as it once was in ancient times. Others use it privately to avoid misunderstandings.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Spinmaster]

LOL

Poor example.

As far as I know McDonalds cooks don't lecture the masses on how to live a moral life.

Gary

Read my post again. Notice the part where I said it was especially hypocritical due to their stations? Now, taking into consideration that I already pointed out your point early on, try to digest the actual point of the post. ;)

[PASmith]

I'm sure we've all heard at least one report of a pedophile school teacher... But I doubt anyone would argue that it's the vocation of teaching that causes the problem.

That's because teachers aren't...

Taught from a young age that sex is dirty and taboo (thereby making sex almost a fetish in itself).
Prevented from expressing their sexuality in normal ways.
Protected by a corrupt and powerful organisation when they do offend.
Moved from one school to another when found out.
Given a get-out clause that their offences are mitigated if they "confess" and "repent".

Being a priest doesn't make you a paedophile. BUT the whole structure is corrupt from the Pope down. The Catholic church is insidiously powerful in the communities that it has its claws in. That means paedophiles can hide within it knowing they will have access to young children that trust them and that will fear accusing them of being abusers.

Essentailly it's a god-send (pun intended) to paedo's because it gives them more freedom to be paedo's than normal people.
That makes it all the more appalling that the Catholic church helped them carry on abusing in many cases.

[Gary - Enshin]

try to digest the actual point of the post.

Nah. I'll leave you to it, thanks.

Far too deep for me. I agree with PASmith (above) The whole thing's rotten from the top down. Even more daft than politicians urging us to be frugal while milking their expenses.

But that's another topic ...

Gary

[Spinmaster]

See, now you're arguing that the institution/organization of the Catholic church is problematic. I can agree with you on that, and I don't think I ever defended it.
However, it's not, as you seem to imply, a reason to condemn Christianity, any more than a bad form of government is a reason to condemn all governments. It's an example of people taking something good (Jesus' teachings) and turning it to their own nefarious purposes.

[PASmith]

It does make your "If it was a teacher" analogy not work though.

[Spinmaster]

It does make your "If it was a teacher" analogy not work though.

Alright, good point.

[47MartialMan]

The swastika itself was around way before the nazi's, but ofcourse it held a different meaning altogether.

Ive seen it in India also for egsample, it aint worth going into but it isnt origionaly nazi symbology, they used it is all.

Of course, knew this and without detail, justed wanted to check if anyone else knew about it.




LOL

Poor example.

As far as I know McDonalds cooks don't lecture the masses on how to live a moral life.

GaryEXACTLY. It is the same with anything where such a person is within strict cinfines of ethical code of conduct.

Hence martial artists, doctors, police, lawyers, well maybe not lawyers

[Blade96]

The reason I asked, if the event took place outside of Asia, then what was requested as a custom, like a bow, should not be enforced in another land.

The instructor should have respected the religious rights of others. IMHO



On the other hand...when visiting someone's "house", and they dont like people to walk in wearing shoes.........

well ours is traditional shotokan so i guess he felt he had to preserve all traditional aspects. and maybe he just feels the cultural aspects as important as the karate itself. When in Rome I guess. if people dont like it they could just go to a club that doesnt bow cant they?

Did you also know a earlier Karate style had a swatiska as a logo?

The swastika itself was around way before the nazi's, but ofcourse it held a different meaning altogether.

Ive seen it in India also for egsample, it aint worth going into but it isnt origionaly nazi symbology, they used it is all.

I was going to say that. The nazis didnt invent the symbol. You beat me to it =]

[47MartialMan]

well ours is traditional shotokan so i guess he felt he had to preserve all traditional aspects. and maybe he just feels the cultural aspects as important as the karate itself. When in Rome I guess. if people dont like it they could just go to a club that doesnt bow cant they?

Yes..when it Rome...like the statement I also made;

On the other hand...when visiting someone's "house", and they dont like people to walk in wearing shoes.........

[Blade96]

Haha. very true.

[47MartialMan]

Haha. very true.
I want to make it perfectly clear, the issue isnt about if someone should or shouldnt bow.

If the instructor and school was so much about student attendence-numbers, enrollment averages, then they will allow one who doesnt want to bow to remain.

This is called "selling out"

[Blade96]

I want to make it perfectly clear, the issue isnt about if someone should or shouldnt bow.

If the instructor and school was so much about student attendence-numbers, enrollment averages, then they will allow one who doesnt want to bow to remain.

This is called "selling out"

No, its about religion and MA and that's why i told this story.

It also makes me quite proud of my Sensei; he is more interested in teaching traditional Shotokan than he is about money or upping his enrollment or anything else.

That he would tell a student that religion and MA doesnt mix in our dojo reveals this, I think. and that religion - though both my senseis believe in God - they do not make it part of our or their training. :)

[47MartialMan]

All religion are hypocrites, just look at the crusade, the Christians, the Muslims, they all kill each other in the name of their sky daddy.
Somewhat per my post (#22)

Nevermind that most wars were started in the name of religion and people will train to and kill another with different religious beliefs........ :eek:

[Bruce_Lee93]

Hey guys, Just to chip my own 2 cents in about the whole Priest/pedophile thing, Statistics say the 2-3% of Catholic Priests have committed a pedophilic act, while the percentage in the general male population is around 8%. My source, if anyone's interested, is the prestigious newspaper the Australian.

[spidersfrommars]

But what percentage had knowledge of such actions being committed and failed utterly to take appropriate action? That's the part that worries me.

[47MartialMan]

But what percentage had knowledge of such actions being committed and failed utterly to take appropriate action? That's the part that worries me.

Yes, there was a TV special about this on a local channel. Many do not come forth.

This is the same with rape statistics also

[Zen Warrior]

There are many faces to Taoism/Shintoism, etc... you can take it as a religion or simply a way of living. I don't profess to be an expert but Taoism does not categorically rule out a "heaven" and thus a god nor do the majority of its texts suggest much more than a way of living in the same way the bible does though probably with a little less interpretation in Taoist texts. Unless you're a fundamental Christian who believes there is only one right way of getting to heaven then I don't believe there's any real problem here.

As for bowing, it's more a fact of showing respect to your dojo/instructor/honbu/chief instructor and finally style/the creator of the style. It has very little at all to do with an omnipotent being. If you're worried your worshiping a false god you can give that belief up right about now because you're not and never have been. If you have a problem with that though I'd suggest you find a dojo that doesn't kneel/bow.

[Knight_Errant]

Unless you're a fundamental Christian who believes there is only one right way of getting to heaven then I don't believe there's any real problem here.
You did read where he said he was a catholic, didn't you? Catholics aren't fundamentalists, they're more extreme than that. If you believe their hype- and you shouldn't- they are the only official and original fundamentalists.

Having said that, I have more sympathy with catholicism than any other branch of organised religion. As we convert to more and more puritannical faiths, we not only get fewer holidays, we also come into danger of taking the whole thing much more seriously than it deserves. And at least catholics don't think they can pick and choose, or shoe-horn their faith into a modern worldview by radically altering it. With them, it's fully-fledged lunacy or nothing.

[Moosey]

Hey guys, Just to chip my own 2 cents in about the whole Priest/pedophile thing, Statistics say the 2-3% of Catholic Priests have committed a pedophilic act, while the percentage in the general male population is around 8%. My source, if anyone's interested, is the prestigious newspaper the Australian.
Sorry, 8% of men have committed an act of paedophilia? As in sexual relations with a child? I find that hard to believe - that's nearly one in ten!

Either a lot of Australians are ... with their kids or that figure's taking a very liberal definition of paedophilia.

[Bruce_Lee93]

Sorry about that, TYPO!!!! I meant to say 5-8%. Once again, sorry.

By the way, Knighterrant, I would like to ask you, how is the Catholic Church fundamentalist? I agree that there are people in it who have fundamentalist leanings, but the Church itself has never been at the level of, for instance, the Mormons or the Puritans, who are what is seen as real "fundamentalists

[spidersfrommars]

Sorry about that, TYPO!!!! I meant to say 5-8%. Once again, sorry.

By the way, Knighterrant, I would like to ask you, how is the Catholic Church fundamentalist? I agree that there are people in it who have fundamentalist leanings, but the Church itself has never been at the level of, for instance, the Mormons or the Puritans, who are what is seen as real "fundamentalists

not a history buff are ya?

[Bruce_Lee93]

Come Again? What history are you talking about?

[Bruce_Lee93]

Which history are you talking about?

[spidersfrommars]

Read up on the history of the catholic church then tell me they aren't just as wacky as the mormons or the puritans. It's all just different brands of crazy.

[Bruce_Lee93]

What History? Give me examples.

[spidersfrommars]

Ok according to them this man was infallible :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI#Mistresses_and_family

lulz aside are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just actually that ignorant of the history of the organization which which you seem to affiliate yourself? The crusades? The troubles in Ireland? None of that rings a bell?

[Bruce_Lee93]

The crusades, though wrong were a war to take back previously Christian lands, and to make safe passage to Jerusalem possible for pilgrims.

Also, the teaching of infallibility is that no Pope has ever, as Peter's representative, preached Heresy. What they did in their private lives is completely unrelated to it.

Ireland, now that is the only one that I haven't heard of. Are you talking about the recent allegations of Pedophilism of Priests there?

One last thing. I can't take you seriously if you get all of your data from Wikipedia. Everybody knows that it is often inaccurate, and what is said on that site can't be taken as 'infallible' itself.

[spidersfrommars]

Ask an Irish person about "the troubles" prepare to be depressed. Yes yes yes wikipedia is inaccurate plenty of the time and I know I'm not going to convince you of much of anything via internet debate, but seriously go read a few history books, take a few medieval history class at you local institute of higher education. Get a good objective view of the history of Catholicism and compare that to the history of any other religion and ask your self is it really any less crazy? Then ask the more important question: why the heck would you want to support any of these institutions?

[47MartialMan]

Ask an Irish person about "the troubles" prepare to be depressed. Yes yes yes wikipedia is inaccurate plenty of the time and I know I'm not going to convince you of much of anything via internet debate, but seriously go read a few history books, take a few medieval history class at you local institute of higher education. Get a good objective view of the history of Catholicism and compare that to the history of any other religion and ask your self is it really any less crazy? Then ask the more important question: why the heck would you want to support any of these institutions?
Nice point.

However, marriage/union is one of the oldest insitutions, the trouble is, who is wanting to remain in a institution for the rest of their life?

[Bruce_Lee93]

You still haven't refuted any of my points. All you've said is "go read histoy books", well I have, and a lot don't agree with your view. My Grandfather is a previous history and english teacher with a list of achievements a mile long and he claims that the medieval period was excellent. Go do your homework.

[47MartialMan]

You still haven't refuted any of my points. All you've said is "go read histoy books", well I have, and a lot don't agree with your view. My Grandfather is a previous history and english teacher with a list of achievements a mile long and he claims that the medieval period was excellent. Go do your homework.

May I ask who are you directing this to?

[Zen Warrior]

You did read where he said he was a catholic, didn't you? Catholics aren't fundamentalists, they're more extreme than that. If you believe their hype- and you shouldn't- they are the only official and original fundamentalists.

Having said that, I have more sympathy with catholicism than any other branch of organised religion. As we convert to more and more puritannical faiths, we not only get fewer holidays, we also come into danger of taking the whole thing much more seriously than it deserves. And at least catholics don't think they can pick and choose, or shoe-horn their faith into a modern worldview by radically altering it. With them, it's fully-fledged lunacy or nothing.

All I'm reading here is "I would like to have an argument please" in which case I direct you to the argument clinic As for Catholics being fundies, I couldn't disagree further. If you want a real fundie talk to a Born Again, or a Seventh Day Adventist/Baptist/Jehovas Witness, I have found more often than not I can at least have a rational conversation with a Catholic. I'm not getting in stupid arguments with athiests, you might see that I attempted to provide an answer rather than providing bait for an argument over the faith that is more fundamental than the other. I do realise this can be a controversial subject but you might want to remember a famous quote that "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" - William Cowper. You may see this as me trying to defend Christianity/Catholicism but you'd be wrong if you thought that. I am Taoist and agnostic which is perfectly compatible to hit on another point you made. I have no particular reason to discourage your argument other than the fact that I've been around on the internet long enough to hear the same line of argument from 1000+ different people.

If you'd like to return to the actual subject matter however I'd be happy to discuss that.

[Gary - Enshin]

Watched 'Kingdom of Heaven' last night. OK it's Hollywood history, but the fact remains that three of the world's great (?) religions are STILL squabbling over a piece of dirt thousands of miles away from here (UK)

That's enough to make me opt out.

Gary

[Kurtka Jerker]

Watched 'Kingdom of Heaven' last night. OK it's Hollywood history, but the fact remains that three of the world's great (?) religions are STILL squabbling over a piece of dirt thousands of miles away from here (UK)

That's enough to make me opt out.

Gary

People will ALWAYS play the system. By that logic, anarchy is the way to go, as governments have waged war at least as regularly and often with far less "honorable" motivations. In reality, that doesn't mean that governments are the problem. It's just people playing the system and taking advantage of those who didn't play as well or at all.

[Gary - Enshin]

By that logic, anarchy is the way to go

By that logic?

No logic there mate just personal choice. You can still be a good person without affiliating yourself to a foreign religion.

Gary

[Zen Warrior]

Watched 'Kingdom of Heaven' last night. OK it's Hollywood history, but the fact remains that three of the world's great (?) religions are STILL squabbling over a piece of dirt thousands of miles away from here (UK)

That's enough to make me opt out.

Gary

Put a bunch of Jews in between a whole bunch of Arabs and then you tell me that there isn't going to be problems. Of course there are and very little of that has to do with religion. It's politics, the British government decided that the region of Palestine would be the perfect place to set up a new Jewish state. The government of the USA decides to continually support Israel for political reasons not with standing that there are a lot of Jews in American history.

Either way it's mostly an overblown political disaster that was created by us but should never have happened in the first place. How can you reinstate a state that hasn't existed in the last 1500 years odd prior? It's like me saying I want to give land back to the Mayans because all these people have Mayan heritage but don't have a state to live in. Civilisations fail as did the Israelites, it doesn't mean we should magically reinstate and prop up their state in a region that is not compatible with them now. The middle east is occupied predominately by sunni and shiat (sp?) muslims yet you expect everyone to play along nicely with a bunch of Jews? Jews that predominately have migrated from other countries no less. It just doesn't make sense.

[Gary - Enshin]

Well thanks for the history lesson. :rolleyes:

Getting swiftly back to the subject of religion, it's one of the few areas in life that you have personal choice over. Whether to worship an imaginary friend who - lets be honest here - doesn't give a lollipop, or whether to get off your knees and get on with living a useful life.

I choose the latter.

Gary

[Spinmaster]

Getting swiftly back to the subject of religion, it's one of the few areas in life that you have personal choice over. Whether to worship an imaginary friend who - lets be honest here - doesn't give a lollipop, or whether to get off your knees and get on with living a useful life.

I choose the latter.

Gary

Do I really need to point out what a skewed view of religion that is? If religion were merely about "worshiping an imaginary friend who doesn't give a [insert choice term here]", do you really think anyone would be religious? :rolleyes:

And, I point you towards the missionaries who helped end customs such as human sacrifice, widow burning, etc. But I'm sure you're living a much more useful life than they did... ;)

[Kurtka Jerker]

What makes you think I was talking about your choice? I've got no business with what you choose. All I was talked about was the justification you offered.

[Zen Warrior]

I brought it to history because you wanted to say that Jews, Arabs, Christians etc are squabbling over land when it's a political issue not a religious one. There's one simple solution. Move Jews into an area where they'll be accepted, cordon off the region as it's to much of a hot bed, allow people to worship there but not to live or have arguments over who lived there 2000 years ago. The forced occupation of Palestine started well before Israel was created as a state, Jewish farmers moved there and bought land started farms and revegetated the area. That didn't however give them right of ownership over the land. We [the west] did that and that's what's created the problems and continues to with Jews being given a supposed right to occupy the area.

As for "imaginary friends" anybody who insists entirely upon the non-existence of an omnipotent being is a crackpot, I can't agree one way or the other on the subject, but coming back to a scientific perspective one can theorise all they like but they can never prove anything. Being a scientist is one of the most humbling careers in the world with it taking just one shred of evidence to disprove an entire scientific theory.

I agree evolution is probably the best explanation we have that can be tested through scientific method but it comes back to the addage "absence of proof is not proof of absence" You might say something is the case to a high degree of probability but that doesn't mean that it's proven. There is no such thing as proof beyond doubt and thus in my books nobody can be an athiest without throwing logic entirely out the window.

[Gary - Enshin]

And, I point you towards the missionaries who helped end customs such as human sacrifice, widow burning, etc. But I'm sure you're living a much more useful life than they did...

Laughing out loud here. You mean the same ones that brought them all kinds of diseases, the inquisition, burnt them at the stake, invented the 'missionary position' etc etc?

I live a useful life here, and I never try and force my views on an unwilling population at the point of a sword, musket, fighter plane or suicide vest.

But that's just me.

Gary

[Kurtka Jerker]

The inquisition was a domestic practice for the Catholic church at the time, rather than something handled by missionaries, as were the burnings. (Again, it could easily be argued that they were more politically motivated than anything else.)
As for disease, that doesn't appear to have been a deliberate attack by the missionaries. It's not as if they travelled with the intent to kill as indiscriminately as disease does. That would make it very difficult to convert anyone, wouldn't it?

Again, I've got no business with your choice, it's that your justifications don't make a lot of sense.

[Spinmaster]

Gary, you have a sadly narrow minded view of missionaries, indeed of religious people in general it seems. If you can open your mind for a short time, I point you towards people such as Nate Saint, who provide quite a contrast to your depiction of the missionary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Saint

[Gary - Enshin]

it's that your justifications don't make a lot of sense

But that's the whole point. My justifications only needs to make sense to ME. I don't preach some foreign faith or try to impose my views on others. Not many 'holy men' can say the same.

Gary, you have a sadly narrow minded view

Taking advice on narrow-mindedness from religious people? No thanks.

Gary

[Kurtka Jerker]

But that's the whole point. My justifications only needs to make sense to ME. I don't preach some foreign faith or try to impose my views on others. Not many 'holy men' can say the same.
That's cool, but if you're coming onto a discussion board to tell everyone how it is in your mind, with no relation to reality or sense, isn't it a little silly to belittle those who believe in a God by making comments about "useful lives" and "imaginary friends who don't give a lollipop"?

[Gary - Enshin]

Ratty

In my working life I saw death and destruction on a wide scale.

Having taken dead and horribly burnt children out of bedrooms with a crucifix in them, seen people with 100% burns whose clothes have caught fire whilst praying at a candle-lit shrine, attended road accidents with body parts spilling out of cars with fishes on the back. (Need I go on?) I formed the view that if there is a God he doesn't give a lollipop.

That is my personal view. I am not trying to impose it on others.

Gary

[Zen Warrior]

Gary, you sound like you've come here to preach your opinion. In that case, why are you bothering to be on a discussion board? It's one thing to have an opinion but the point of being here is being able to discuss not preach. tough things happen to everyone, if you start expecting everything to be solved by "god did it" then of course you're going to frustrated when god doesn't do it. I don't claim to understand christianity I don't practice it, I never have, but if your looking for a magical person to solve all your problems when bad things happen I think your expecting to much.

[Gary - Enshin]

Gary, you sound like you've come here to preach your opinion.

Not at all. If I wanted to preach I'd be in a church. I'm simply stating why I don't believe in a benevolent God. (Imaginary friend)

Gary

[Kurtka Jerker]

In my working life I saw death and destruction on a wide scale.

Having taken dead and horribly burnt children out of bedrooms with a crucifix in them, seen people with 100% burns whose clothes have caught fire whilst praying at a candle-lit shrine, attended road accidents with body parts spilling out of cars with fishes on the back. (Need I go on?) I formed the view that if there is a God he doesn't give a lollipop.

That is my personal view. I am not trying to impose it on others.

Oh, people die? Huh. News to me.
I suppose I could talk about a bunch of really good things and say that must mean you're wrong, but that's not the whole story, is it? That would be skewing the image of reality to support my argument, right? This isn't a difficult concept.

You say that your reasoning only needs to make sense to you, but you keep telling us about it. Why?

[Gary - Enshin]

Oh, people die? Huh. News to me.

LOL

Where have you been Ratty, we all die. We die whether we believe or not.

Gary

[spidersfrommars]

You still haven't refuted any of my points. All you've said is "go read histoy books", well I have, and a lot don't agree with your view. My Grandfather is a previous history and english teacher with a list of achievements a mile long and he claims that the medieval period was excellent. Go do your homework.

You made points?

[Gary - Enshin]

Memorable quote from the Film: (How I jumped in to this can of worms)

Hospitaller: I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here
[points to head]
Hospitaller: and here
[points to heart]
Hospitaller: and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not.

On that note I'll leave you to it.

Peace. (However you find it)

Gary

[Bruce_Lee93]

You made points?

I went and gave you evidence that what you were arguing was slander, then you just said "go read some objective history". Not only is that avoiding the question, there is no such thing as objective history

[Zen Warrior]

I have a bone to pick as someone who's studying a history major... There is actually a whole category of history that is now rewriting objective history. It's called big history/world history. You might try having a read through that.

[Spinmaster]

Taking advice on narrow-mindedness from religious people? No thanks.

Wow... And you have the gall to talk about religious people like they're bigoted? Ya know, a lot of people like to throw around an example of a prejudiced religious person saying something like "Take moral advice from an atheist? No thanks!", but I think you've given us the perfect example that people can have that bigoted spirit and self righteous mentality no matter what they believe.

LOL

Where have you been Ratty, we all die. We die whether we believe or not.

Hmm... Why am I getting an nagging feeling that you missed the sarcasm in Ratty's post... nah, couldn't have been. You're far too clever and sardonic for that to be possible. ;)

[spidersfrommars]

I went and gave you evidence that what you were arguing was slander, then you just said "go read some objective history". Not only is that avoiding the question, there is no such thing as objective history

What evidence?

[PASmith]

BL93.

I think what he is getting at is that the catholic church has a history of killing and subjugating people that disagreed with what it thinks of as "truth". Trying to silence dissent or difference.
That's how fundalmentalists often act.

Therefore pointing that out is not slander (can you even slander an organisation?).
It's just stating the facts of history (as you have been directed to read up on).

He's suggesting that your fondness for the catholic church is colouring your view of it and making you fail to see the same behaviour you call "fundamentalist" in your own church.

I think he's right. :)

[Bruce_Lee93]

What evidence?

Okay, Lets get down to business. You said that the Church is bad because of such things as the Crusades and Papal transgressions. I answered your argument with arguments of my own, and then you started raving that I should read some "history". I said that I did and asked you what your point was. You never answered my arguments. If you want I will give you quotes from historians, religious articles, etcetera to back my claims.

[Gary - Enshin]

:cool:

Calm yourself down Spinmaster, getting worked up over a different opinion is pointless.

Gary

[Spinmaster]

Oh please. You're going to play the "I'm above this and you're too emotionally involved so I don't deign to answer" card? :p

[Gary - Enshin]

Er no, just not personalising things.

I'm not religious, you are. You're entitled to your views in a free country, so am I.

Gary

[spidersfrommars]

Okay, Lets get down to business. You said that the Church is bad because of such things as the Crusades and Papal transgressions. I answered your argument with arguments of my own, and then you started raving that I should read some "history". I said that I did and asked you what your point was. You never answered my arguments. If you want I will give you quotes from historians, religious articles, etcetera to back my claims.

Raving? :P

Ok to respond to your "arguments" about the pope and the crusades, I don't exactly see acceptance of massive personal hypocrisy and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in the name of tourism as points against them being nutty. Rather the opposite really.
So, Have any of the groups you listed as fundamentalist wackos caused atrocities on the scale of the catholic church?

[Gary - Enshin]

:D

I have no doubt special men have lived over the ages and made a huge contribution to mankind.

Where it all goes wrong for me though, is that once easily offended and empire building men take over from the special ones, self-interest and "My gang's better than your gang" inevitably start to rear their ugly head.

Not unlike Martial Arts then ...

Gary

[CKava]

Ok...

GaryC cut out the swearing. It's not necessary to make your point.

As for the rest. Sheesh. The extreme bias is flying around all over the place. The Catholic church has been responsible for reprehensible atrocities but at the same time it's impossible to deny that it has also had a positive impact in many areas. I'm a strong atheist and I have no problem recognising that religion isn't just an entirely destructive force. The reason people believe in religions isn't just because of indoctrination and not being able to think critically or study history. Many people have profound personal experiences and religious communities often provide supportive networks with many useful services which act in a positive and charitable way.

That doesn't mean paedophilia isn't a problem in the Catholic church. It is. If you read the Ryan report or just look at the way the Vatican is currently responding to the most recent round of scandals you can see it is. The reaction is very much to try and sweep the problem away rather than address the issue and admit mistakes. Similarly, there is no end to the controversies with evangelical pastors or, for that matter, with practically any religion that exists in the world today. For just one example often held up as an ideal in martial arts... Buddhists priests in Japan are often accused of being money hungry and charging extortionate rates for funeral services and there has been an ongoing controversy surrounding profiteering from memorial rites held for aborted babies.

My point however is not that because of these kind of bad things therefore all religion is evil- that is too simplistic and it ignores the fact that religions can and frequently do have positive effects on individuals and communities. Religion is very much a mixed bag and while personally believe that a lot of religious belief is harmful or at least in competition with reason, I also think it betrays a rather silly bias to completely ignore the positive impact that religious belief has for many people. You don't have to vilify and misrepresent something in order to criticise it. And in fact, it makes your criticism stronger if you base it more on fact than rhetoric!

Oh yeah and for the person who brought up Northern Ireland earlier. I am from Northern Ireland and from my perspective I can say that the issue isn't really religion. Nobody, for instance, cares what the Protestant view on the Eucharist is, what they care about is whether you view yourself as British or Irish and whether you support a united Ireland or want to remain part of the UK. The religion thing is more of a badge for identifying a political and national identity than the specific cause of the fighting. Hence, you won't get Catholics from Belfast who have an issue with Protestants in Germany or Protestants in Belfast who have a problem with Polish Catholics (or at least I don't think so). The religious dimension had a stronger impact historically but now... I think it's misleading to characterise the troubles as a religious conflict.

[Spinmaster]

Thank you CKava, it's nice to hear from such a balanced perspective. Ya know, even as a Christian, I don't deny that religion has been used for some very ugly things... but what irks me is (as you pointed out) when this is used as an attempt to vilify all aspects of religion and ignore the good it has done (and still does).

@Gary: No, no you're not simply trying to avoid personalizing things. You already personalized things when you said "take advice from a religious person?? no thanks!!" Now you're trying to use the "we all have our own opinions" as a get out of jail free card when I call you on your bias.

[Bruce_Lee93]

Yeah. But I would like to point out to Spidersfrommars that:
1. The Crusades were simply a war to regain territory and to protect pilgrims. True there were atrocities, but these were the work of the opportunistic soldiers who joined the crusades to gain plunder, not the work of the Church.

2. I can name a lot of "Fundamentalist" atrocities. There was a case of a Priest being killed and his heart torn by a group of men's teeth. Also, never forget the salem witch trials...

[ap Oweyn]

Hey everyone. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and I also train in Karate. I've been wondering, how do you reconcile western religious beliefs with the elements of Taoism and Buddhism that you so frequently find in the martial arts? Do the different belief systems clash? Or is there a happy medium? Any thoughts or comments welcome.

I'm going to try and go back to this original question, and avoid all the stuff that took place after it.

I'm not religious. So for me, there's no conflict. But I'm going to try and approach this question as though I were. First, there are plenty of schools that don't come from a Buddhist or Daoist framework. There are reality-based self-defense schools or mixed martial arts schools that don't really come from that spiritual framework. Even in the small trappings, like bowing. A simple handshake might substitute, for instance.

There are also a fair number of martial arts schools that come from explicitly Christian frameworks. I've seen a growing contigent there. And I also come from a Filipino martial arts background. And, as you may know, many Filipinos are Catholic anyway. So my first eskrima school was and still is saturated in Catholic values. It's perfectly possible to locate training opportunities that either don't conflict or actually gel quite nicely with your own spiritual beliefs.

For those schools that do come from a Buddhist or Daoist framework, the degree to which they're emphasized is going to vary greatly. Though the degree to which an individual is willing to experience other cultures figures into it as well. The whole bowing thing is an issue. To me, if someone is unwilling to bow while attending a cultural tradition in which it's the norm, then perhaps that person doesn't belong there. I've not thought of bowing as being connected to one diety or another. I likely wouldn't do it myself if that were the case. I think of bowing as being an acknowledgment of something bigger than I am. Doesn't have to be a god to be bigger than me. The history of the style, the community formed by the school, the experience of the teacher, all are bigger than me. And deserve the recognition for such.

I think that there's value in drawing a clear distinction between a spiritual practice and a cultural practice. Japanese business men, for instance, bow to each other in precisely the same context that American businessmen would shake hands. No deification involved.

I think you need to be very careful not to fabricate conflict where there isn't any.


Stuart

[Gary - Enshin]

Spinmaster

Take a few deep breaths.

It's a shame when we don't all agree with other views, but I'm afraid that's how it is in the real world. You'll cope.

Gary

[Kurtka Jerker]

I don't think you quite get this "discussion board" thing. When you post a claim or outline a stance on an issue, people will usually expect you to support that. This is especially true when comments as intolerant as yours have been posted.
Noone's getting worked up or trying to convert you. You're creating a religious fanatic bent on changing your worldview where there is none. I'm starting to think you've developed some kind of phobia regarding religion.

[Gary - Enshin]

LOL

You've just got to be kidding.

I haven't got a phobia about it, I just don't believe in it. I understand discussion boards very well thanks Ratty, there are usually different points of view.

Spinmaster "calling" me on my (different) opinion is a bit pointless. Funny how followers of the religion of peace get so wound up over things.

Gary

[Spinmaster]

Spinmaster

Take a few deep breaths.

It's a shame when we don't all agree with other views, but I'm afraid that's how it is in the real world. You'll cope.

Gary

Okay, lets try this again... I will attempt to spell things out very clearly, since obviously my last few posts have not gotten through.

1)I do not care if you disagree with me. Some of my best friends disagree with me on things, this does not interfere with our relationships or interactions. People disagree - that's life.

2)Your "agree to disagree" attitude and lack of desire to be confrontational is admirable... except for the fact that you displayed a very different attitude only a few posts ago, and now adopt this stance in refusal to respond to my points and those of others.

3)Your last few posts have not contributed anything of relevance, nor actually addressed the comments that I and others have posted in response to your previous posts. Comments such as "We disagree - you'll cope" offer nothing to the discussion... they only gloss over the actual issues I'm trying to discuss with you, in an attempt to sound smugly and disdainfully above anything one such as myself might have to say.

[Gary - Enshin]

I will attempt to spell things out very clearly

I do not care if you disagree with me

Your "agree to disagree" attitude and lack of desire to be confrontational is admirable

Phew! Glad that's all sorted!

:cool:

(Sorry, but I don't take life - or discussion boards - this seriously)

[PASmith]

The Crusades were simply a war to regain territory and to protect pilgrims. True there were atrocities, but these were the work of the opportunistic soldiers who joined the crusades to gain plunder, not the work of the Church.

I'm not that up on the crusades but I feel this is being FAR to forgiving of church activities at that time.
You make it sound like a child's tea party that got spoiled by some nasty older children.
I bet we misunderstood the inquisition too? They just wanted to warm some old ladies feet in the winter? It was that "other lot" that set them on fire!

[Bruce_Lee93]

Actually the inquisition was originally founded to root out fake converts from Islam. As the main cause f conflict between Spain and the Moors was religion, essentially the inquisition was an attempt to root out traitors. Also, the numbers of deaths were greatly exaggurated by the Lutherans in order to make themselves look better. I'll use this quote to give you the actual numbers:



"Thankfully, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records and these are now being sifted through by historians. They paint a very different picture of sentencing patterns to traditional historians. Geoffrey Parker analyzed 49,000 trial records between 1540 and 1700, representing one third of the total, and found 776 executions took place. This suggests a total of about 2,000 in the period reviewed. Earlier records are less well preserved but do not support the picture of a bloodbath usually painted. Henry Kamen (p. 60) does not believe more than a thousand executions took place in the earlier period. Recent work, sponsored by the Catholic Church, also points to a significantly lower death toll. Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome, writes that about 125,000 people were tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain. Of these, about 1,200 - 2,000 were actually executed, although more killings were performed by non-church tribunals."

if you want the site, this is it: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/spanish-inquisition/death-tolls.html

[PASmith]

Only a paltry 2000 people killed over meaningless distinctions between various bed-time stories and make-believe sky-fathers?

Well that's all right then. The catholic church is pretty much off the hook.
How many people would need to be wrongly murdered for you to think badly of an organisation? 3000? A million?

I don't care how many people the catholic church has killed or caused to be abused.
They clearly aren't the custodians of ANY sort of moral or universal truth and that's that.
An organisation with a hotline to the creator of the universe and some higher moral sense just wouldn't act that way AT ALL.
They are just humans. Flawed and stupid humans bumbling through life like the rest of us.

[Gary - Enshin]

:cool: Well that's took the heat off me a bit PA, I owe you one.

Guess you'll not be welcome at Mass for a while ...

Gary

[spidersfrommars]

2. I can name a lot of "Fundamentalist" atrocities. There was a case of a Priest being killed and his heart torn by a group of men's teeth. Also, never forget the salem witch trials...

Yep the puritans were plenty nuts too, but is there really a big difference between murdering someone because you think they might be a which and murdering someone because you think they might be a muslim? Its all fear and hatred driven by superstitious mumbo jumbo just in different forms (and wearing different funny looking hats)

[Spinmaster]

(Sorry, but I don't take life - or discussion boards - this seriously)

If you cannot take discussion boards seriously enough to carry on a coherent discussion, perhaps they aren't your cup of tea.

[Gary - Enshin]

:rolleyes:

Spinmaster, not sure why you're still on my case, others have said far worse.

Gary

[CKava]

I don't care how many people the catholic church has killed or caused to be abused.
They clearly aren't the custodians of ANY sort of moral or universal truth and that's that.
An organisation with a hotline to the creator of the universe and some higher moral sense just wouldn't act that way AT ALL.
They are just humans. Flawed and stupid humans bumbling through life like the rest of us.
I'm no Catholic but I don't see that your argument follows logically. If a religion really did have the right deity and really did have some sort of privileged access to it's views why would that guarantee that followers of the religion would behave precisely as the deity wanted? Like you say people are just humans at the end of the day so wouldn't you expect them to get things wrong?

[Spinmaster]

:rolleyes:

Spinmaster, not sure why you're still on my case, others have said far worse.

It's nothing personal, I assure you. I would be "on the case" of anyone who posted such ill-informed and amazingly one-sided drivel as you have, and who refused to discuss said drivel after posting it. :)
Whether or not "others have posted worse" is irrelevant, because at everyone else in this thread has at least made an attempt to back their points and respond to any criticism which may have been leveled at their posts.

Keep it coming though. Since retiring I've missed a bit of cut and thrust so I'm good for as much of this as you want.

I read this before you edited... it was phrased somewhat differently, along the lines of "I've missed winding people up." I believe people who get their enjoyment out of purposely winding others up on the internet are usually referred to as "trolls". ;) Those who do it in RL as well... well there's a slightly different term for them. :whistle:


Don't dish it out if you can't take it though. Up to you.


I don't intend to "dish out" anything, merely point out the flaws in your reasoning. :) If you wish to continue responding by ignoring intelligent discussion and attempting to get a rise out of me, that is of course your prerogative.

[Gary - Enshin]

I'm no Troll, I'm far too ugly.

[CKava]

Gary if you have no interest in discussing the topic and are now only posting to provoke other posters that is trolling. Kindly post on topic or avoid posting in the thread. Much obliged.

[Gary - Enshin]

My apologies CKava

Consider it done ...

Gary

[PASmith]

I'm no Catholic but I don't see that your argument follows logically.

I'm not sure it is logical from my end but I'll try and explain. :)

As I understand it the pope is God's highest representative on earth. Someone in direct contact with Him. Someone that on certain matters is deemed to be infallible. A man that it is also currently being revealed as someone that has directly allowed child abusers to continue abusing children.

Now...if I was God...I'd probably use this man's closeness to me to have a word in his shell-like...something along the lines of...

*In big booming God-voice*

"Now look here Ratzinger...in a few years it's going to come out that you are going to let this Paedophile off the hook....be a good man and report him to the police now as if you don't it's going to make the organisation that represents my views and desires for mankind look like a right bunch of idiots. And while you're about it implement this across the board wherever an abusive priest is reported...it'll look better in the long run. You're making me look like an idiot up here".

Clearly this little papal/god conversation never happened.

Personally I would expect the custodians of "ultimate truth" to have a much better record of behaviour that reflects their priviliged position.
Opposing slavery while everyone else condoned it for example.
That's probably not logical (almost certainly not) but it's something I feel would be an indicator that they were much closer to preaching something worthwhile.

Sort of like someone that knows what the stock market will do before it does it. Their behaviour would be very different to someone that didn't have that information.

[Bruce_Lee93]

There is no proof that the Pope covered up for pedophiles. In fact, the allegations were made by an ex bishop who was defrocked because he paid 250,000 in hush money to a gay ex lover.

[Spinmaster]

Bruce_Lee93: I'm afraid that attempting to argue the pope's innocence isn't really the way to go... even if this pope is innocent, it's easy enough to find similar examples. Unfortunately, not all "religious people" are "Godly people" no matter what their positions or claims. Besides which, I believe religion is a personal thing... God speaks to the individual, no mediator such as the pope is necessary, nor do they have the authority they often claim, at least if one is going by the teachings of Christ in the bible.
I think your time would be better spent in showing examples of the men and women who have done great things for their fellow man, in the name of God. :)

[Pitfighter]

Well Bruce Lee. I'll admit I was born into a family with no religion. My mom converted to Buddhism while I was a child. My sisters and I explored spirituality on our own. My eldest sister is basically agnostic. My other sister is nominally Buddhist. I too am Buddhist and I unlike other converts to Buddhism I am just Buddhist.

I do not feel a need to reconcile Buddhism with any other religion because I don't believe in the doctrines of other religions.

Some believe that the path towards enlightenment and oneness with god or closeness with god are the same. I do not. I do not seek the salvation or closeness or submission to a higher power. I acknowledge there may be a higher power but I do not worship it.

I believe achieving aware is my ultimate goal and that is different from seeking out God.

[PASmith]

There is no proof that the Pope covered up for pedophiles. In fact, the allegations were made by an ex bishop who was defrocked because he paid 250,000 in hush money to a gay ex lover.

Erm...you remember that point we made about your fondness of the Catholic church clouding your judgement on the actions of its representatives?
I think it's happening again.

This seems pretty damning to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html

[Bruce_Lee93]

oi! let's keep this on subject!

[spidersfrommars]

Ok then, anything you want to say in response to me or PASmith? Otherwise Im going to start joining in with the bad jewjitsu puns.

[Spinmaster]

oi! let's keep this on subject!

What else do you want to know on the topic of religion in the arts? It's been noted several times in the thread that the arts themselves hold no religious connotations, that anything religious in the art is merely because of the personal preferences of the founder/school/teacher. So there really isn't any conflict between MA and religion, unless you create one.[1]
If a certain custom in a particular school really bothers you, ask to be allowed to not partake in this part... if this isn't acceptable, find a school that doesn't have the custom.

[1]Unless of course you have religious convictions against all forms/uses of violence. But to be honest, I can't really respect that viewpoint... Because there are situations where violence is absolutely necessary to prevent a greater evil.

[Bruce_Lee93]

I don't want this thread to become a 'joke thread'. If there is nothing more to say, let's just not say anything.

[Bruce_Lee93]

'Benedict is well known for handling priestly abuse cases in the Vatican before he became pope. While some have criticized his role in adjudicating such cases over the past two decades, he has also won praise from victims’ advocates for taking the issue more seriously, apologizing to American victims in 2008.'

Even if he covered up before, which, when reading the article, seems to me to not be proved, point is that he is taking a firmer stance now, so what happened previously is not really relevant.

[spidersfrommars]

"Not really relevant?" Covering up for the rape of children is not really relevant!? I have very low moral standards but that's just plain wrong. If you don't think everyone involved in any way shape or form with a crime this atrocious should be thrown in jail then I simply don't know what else I can say.

[Spinmaster]

Even if he covered up before, which, when reading the article, seems to me to not be proved, point is that he is taking a firmer stance now, so what happened previously is not really relevant.

It's very relevant. I'm not surprised that now he's pope he's "taking a firmer stance", because he's under much more public scrutiny now. But it's what a person will do when the public isn't watching (or perhaps in his case, much less of the public was watching) that tells you what kind of a person one really is.

[Bruce_Lee93]

You're probably right. However, I think that there is still no evidence that is damning enough to condemn a man. Plus, what I mean about it not being relevant is that what the Pope did before he became pope often has no bearing on him as a Pope, because, and you'll probably disagree with me here, the Pope is doctrinally infallible. That is to say, a pope cannot preach 'heretical' or evil teachings as Pope. A good example of this is the story of a man who, in order to become pope killed, took bribes, and made deals with emporess Theodora, who wanted to make the Papacy her puppet. The man, who cannot remember the name of, agreed to preach heretical doctrine when he became pope in exchange for monetary backing. However, when he was finally made pope he turned his back on Emporess Theodora and refused to preach heresy. This lead to his eventual execution.

That is what Papal infallibility is. Regardless of what they may have done before being made pope, they never preach heresy. That is all

[spidersfrommars]

So is it that anything he says becomes non-heretical because he said it, (sot of a meaningless idea in that case) or is there some magical force preventing him from speaking hearsay (would his head explode or something if he tried) either way sounds a bit goofy.

[Bruce_Lee93]

You seem to misunderstand me. What I mean is that no Pope preaches heresy because they are guided by the Holy Spirit. It's a fundamental Church doctrine. I'll bet you that if you went through the whole history of the Church you would not find a single pope that preached Heresy.

[Fish Of Doom]

a quick search revealed that papal infallibility is not, in fact, that the pope can not preach heresy, but that his word is final when he acts officially to resolve doctrinal disputes, and that it's not a passive, omnipresent faculty. infallibility of the pope was defined in 1870 (according to the church, it was recognized but not formally laid down prior to that point) in Vatican I, and has subsequently been applied to different papal proclamations from before that time.

[Bruce_Lee93]

That's not what the catechism says.

[CKava]

That's not what the catechism says.
Source please. What does the catechism say about papal infallibility.

[Fish Of Doom]

for the record, i got my info from here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp and wiki

[aikiMac]

Hey everyone. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and I also train in Karate. I've been wondering, how do you reconcile western religious beliefs with the elements of Taoism and Buddhism that you so frequently find in the martial arts? Do the different belief systems clash? Or is there a happy medium? Any thoughts or comments welcome.

Well, returning to the OP -- I have been a student at 13 or so different schools (over many years) and attended several seminars on top of that, but I have never ran into a conflict. Not even once. And I am very religious.


On papal infallibility -- you left out morals, Fish. It's in CCC paragraphs 891 and 2035. (Why do Romans so conveniently forget that the doctrine applies to ecumenical councils???)

[Bruce_Lee93]

"Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
That's what I was trying to say.

[Spinmaster]

BL93: You're willing to put unconditional faith in one man simply because of his office/title? I seem to recall verses in the epistles, where Paul tells the church to "test the spirits", "work out your own salvation" and "if any man preach a different Jesus, He is not of God".
I don't recall any verses where any single man is given entire authority over the church.

[Bruce_Lee93]

However, Jesus says in the Gospel,"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." This is the foundation of the doctrine, along with "those whose sins you forgive they are forgiven and those whose sins you retain, they are retaioned", and "Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

[aikiMac]

BL93: You're willing to put unconditional faith in one man simply because of his office/title? I seem to recall verses in the epistles, where Paul tells the church to "test the spirits", "work out your own salvation" and "if any man preach a different Jesus, He is not of God".
I don't recall any verses where any single man is given entire authority over the church.
And don't forget the episode where Peter was flat out wrong, and Paul publicly called him on it! Ya, Romans love that one. Not. :)

No single person was given authority. Rather, authority was given to the collective body of Apostles, who passed it on to their successor bishops, who passed it on to the next generation of bishops, and so on. In the beginning East and West had the same definition for "primacy of Peter." The Eastern churches still hold to that original definition. The authority of bishops both individually and collectively is amply supported in early Christian writings and is still today recognized as the governing authority in the several traditions that actually have an unbroken living family-tree connection back to the Apostles: Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and maybe a few more.

[Bruce_Lee93]

[QUOTE=aikiMac;34119833]And don't forget the episode where Peter was flat out wrong, and Paul publicly called him on it! Ya, Romans love that one. Not. :)
QUOTE]


Where is that? give me the verse.

[aikiMac]

Galatians chapter 2.

[PASmith]

Where is that? give me the verse.

Please? Being a Christian obviously doesn't do much for your manners. :)

[Bruce_Lee93]

No, but I can't accept a Bible verse that is not a quote, and/or is not referenced.

[Stanislovas]

http://holybible.com/resources/KJV_DFND/index.php?Book=68&mode=4&BookTitle=Galatians&Chapter=2

[Bruce_Lee93]

Looks like this thread is finally dead... 'sigh'

[47MartialMan]

Looks like this thread is finally dead... 'sigh'

Romans; Chapter 13, Verse 6