Would you convert into a different religion just to learn a certain style?

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

"I prefer to think (and I'm not alone, here) that all of us ARE God, and that simply by existing, we create God as we go. "

you're a satanist!

[Royal Dragon]

1. GOD exists
2. GOD made everything
3. GOD does not care about anything you do so long as you don't harm others.


All else is made by man to controll other men.

[Gabriel]

So Braden..

"You are mistaken. "Give unto caesar what is caesar's" is one of the quotes we have directly from Jesus. His philosophy was that religion had nothing to do politics - you do your religion thing, and you do your politics thing. This was directly opposed to Jewish beliefs, and specifically directly opposed to Jewish beliefs in what a messiah should be - which is exactly why Christianity was not a Jewish sect. "

You are not looking back far enough my intellectual friend. Say, in the time of Cain and Abel.... Cain and his people, the agriculturists, and Abel and his people, nomadic herders were at odds. Cain's people began...let me see...oh yes.."The tillers of the soil were watering their fields with the blood of semitic herders".

Another interesting thing is the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. According to the text, God only excepted Abels offering(sacrifice). Why would a religion that ultimately served Cains brood say that Abel was the only one blessed by God. It doesn't make any sense. However, if the story of Cain and Abel were war propaganda from the Semites(people of Abel), it would start to become more clear. The Semites told this story amongst themselves. "We are the only ones blessed by god, curse those murdering soil tillers!". Now, why wasn't this story stomped out by Cain's followers you ask? Because the semites were never completely overrun, and their ancestors, who turned more to the way of Cain(ie. soil tilling and settlement) were the Hebrews...and..well you know how it goes from there. Political, yes?

GUHAHAHAHAHA Take a few theology courses and Im a leg up..expept maybe with you Rev.

D AMNED SOIL TILLERS! Doh, forgot to take my pill......

[Braden]

Gab -

None of that is Christianity.

RD -

Interesting reasoning. Are you interested in discussing it?

[Gabriel]

Cain and Abels story is in Genesis, which is in the bible, i fail to see how that is not Christianity...

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

my daughter just stole my dinner.

da mn kids.

worse than dogs.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Someone back there told me not to confuse what people do with a religion with the religion.

Not interested - I'm referring to whats in the good "books." That is where I find all the scary stuff. Often what people have done with it is much more noble than the source material.

Do not beleive me? Read it. Not just the pretty sounding parts. All of it.

And yes, originally Christianity was a branch of Judaism - a fringe one for sure - but Judaism none the less. It was the Roman civil war that divided families and created the final break between the two.

Heck, originally Christianity was only for Jews and a few stragglers. It was only when one of the disciples noticed some of the mystery cults in Greece that it started to open up.

All middle Eastern religions are politics. Heck, as far as I can tell only Buddhism isn't. Maybe Taoism - some sects.

The fact that we have lost this realization is really scary.

[Braden]

Gab -

The Old Testament, as I'm sure you know, is the holy word of the Jewish people. The New Testament, as I'm sure you know, is the message of Jesus. If you have read the two of them, you will undeniably note that they are very different messages. It should fall, both intuitively and rationally, from the above that, where the messages differ, someone billing themself as a follower of Jesus (Christian) would side on the message of Jesus.

That's the simple response.

If you want the complex response - Jesus came with [at least what people interested in such things would call] an important message. One of Jesus's "big ideas" was that he had not come to replace or refute any aspect of society. He had this big message about how everyone and everything could be ok. If you look at the name of what was the first and primary school of his teachings, Catholic, you will find that it means 'universal' - and, pervsions which arose over time as it became popular aside, is no accident. What you have to keep in mind about Jesus and his message is that it did not, historically occur in a vacuum. He was born a Jew, in a Jewish culture, and he was preaching his message to Jews. It is no accident then, that he used Jewish metaphors to spread his message. You don't walk into a Jewish culture and use a Sumerian mythos to talk to them, it just wouldn't make any sense. So, Jesus came with a message, and it so happened that he was telling this message to Jews, and therefore in a Jewish way, and in addition he told them they didn't have to stop being Jews in order to follow his message (which, btw, is an overriding theme which should be kept in mind, in general for this whole discussion). However, you should not mistakenly conclude from these facts that the Jewish message is an integral part of Jesus' message - indeed, to conclude that would be in exact opposition of these facts.

[Royal Dragon]

Braden, sure, I'll discuss it, but after being raised Catholic and sending my daughter to Lutheran schools all her life and my own personal observations for the last 34 1/2 years, I think I've just said it all.

Gabriel, NO Christanity starts with the NEW TESTAMENT. Genisiss is PRE Christian writtings.

[ReverendTim]

Braden...

Jesus was a Jew, his follwers were Jews, and they identified themselves *as* Jews. They were indeed a Jewish sect *initially*. Obviously, they evolved out of Judaism eventually. And I maintain that any group that stresses the community over the hierarchy and goes around knocking over money-changers' tables is behaving in a political fashion. I agree that Jesus was saying not to confuse the laws of men with the laws of God, but I think even that sentiment IS political. Governmental, maybe not, but fundamentally political? Absolutely.

As far as quotes we have directly from Jesus...historically speaking, we don't know that we have any. We have some good guesses as to which he might have said and which others might have attributed to him. That is, unless you're hoarding the Q gospel somewhere.

And you misunderstood my "pre-Luther" comment. I was trying to say that the Catholic chuch from its inception has perpetuated the "old guy in the sky" model of God, especially when it didn't have any competition (ie Protestants!).

Notice how I'm much less verbose after a heavy-bag workout?

--
Rev. Tim

P.S. Downloaded the GRM4 mod yet? REAL men use a mortar!

[Braden]

MonkeySlap Too -

"Do not beleive me? Read it. Not just the pretty sounding parts. All of it."

Give an example.

"And yes, originally Christianity was a branch of Judaism."

The Jews say it wasn't. The Christians say it wasn't. Many of it's beliefs are in direct opposition to Jewish beliefs. In light of this, I'd think you'd have to offer at least some reasoning to support this claim.

"Heck, originally Christianity was only for Jews and a few stragglers."

Really? Again, some support for this would be interesting. I can think of early church fathers who came directly from the Greek philosophical heritage.

"All middle Eastern religions are politics."

So a direct quote from Jesus, from the holy book of the religion, saying "This religion is not politics" isn't enough to convince you, huh?

Taoism isn't politics!? I gotta say, that just confuses me completely.

[Braden]

Rev

"And I maintain that any group that stresses the community over the hierarchy and goes around knocking over money-changers' tables is behaving in a political fashion."

The money-changers thing, as I'm sure you know, was an entirely spiritual concern. It was most certainly not an attack against 'money-changers' in the sense you're suggesting.

" agree that Jesus was saying not to confuse the laws of men with the laws of God, but I think even that sentiment IS political."

If every possible stance on anything is political, than I am forced to agree he was being political. I'm not sure what meaning such a definition has though.

"As far as quotes we have directly from Jesus...historically speaking, we don't know that we have any."

We have that quote, with all it's baggage and inaccuracies. If we can conclude nothing from it, then we can't have this argument at all (ie. you can't conclude they WERE political any more than I can conclude they're NOT). In other words, we can either argue about the facts we have (with all their limitations) or we can't argue at all.

"I was trying to say that the Catholic chuch from its inception has perpetuated the 'old guy in the sky' model of God."

Where are you getting this idea? I've actually read alot of the writings of the early, early Catholic thinkers, and I get the exact opposite idea. Indeed, many of these writings have been deemed aprocyphal for this exact reason.

[TaoBoxer]

Many styles profess religous or philosophical underpinnings, but which styles are truly religous?

Shorinji Kempo comes to mind. At 4th dan, you become a monk (which is why there are a lot of 3rd dans in America!!).

Another would be the Bagua taught in Taiwan by the students of Wang Shu Chin who pretty much require membership in the I Kuan Dao to reach higher levels of Chi Kung, etc.

I know in some Indonesian styles, there is a heavy Muslim influence, but I have never heard of Converting being required. Much the same for the Muslim system of Hsing I.

Indian Sihks were historically known as bad-ass warriors and required by their religon to carry a blade at all times. I know they have an "official" yoga-like workout, but I am not aware of a specific martial art.

I think with some arts, the religon might not be required so much as the art is taught in an ethnic vaccuum. Kallayarapayut for example is taught around Calcutta, India. Most if not all practitioners would be Indian, probably Hindu, and speak Punjabi(?). Doesn't mnake it a requirement, just means that that is the social norm. Also, true or not, many people believe these arts to be too dangerous to be taught to amoral students, and long term membership in a religon may go toward proving your character to the Teacher.

just my .02

[Gabriel]

No disrespects meant dispite my evil laughing last time..I simply still do not understand..

Ok. To me, there are three VERY vital points of religion:

Explains how the world and universe came into being.

Details how one should live their life on a day to day basis.

Outlines what happens when you die.

Ok, i think beyond the Old Testament the last two points are addressed. However, the first point, which is kind of important to a religion, is addressed by the old testament. Curious. Are you guys honestly saying that Christianity doesn't have its own explanation of the beginning of things? I think christianity excepts that whole seven day thing. story of cain and abel..moses...noah..Well, as immortalized by an unknown frenchie..What Ze Fock. Now you guys are telling me that you don't use this stuff? Come on. Er...you do too! Old testament or no, you guys use it to the hilt, telling children the Ark story, cause its cushy and has animals..Adam and Eve is big too. Oh, and the parting of the red sea, c'mon guys, I remember this stuff from church school for chrissakes. And yes, I went to a Protestant church.

[ReverendTim]

Braden,

Anything that upsets the balance of *power* is political. I'm not saying that every action is political, but I am saying that politics is deeper than who's in charge of collecting taxes. If Jesus' message isn't political, how come liberation theologists keep getting assassinated by Central American dictators for preaching it?

You're right when you say that the money-changers incident is intended to teach a spiritual lesson.

Your claim that the quote in question is directly attributable to Jesus is erreoneous insofar as it's difficult to substantiate, historically, *any* verbatim teachings of Jesus. Scholars postulate the "Quelle" gospel, which is theoretically a collection of sayings more directly attributable to Jesus, but I don't know that it's a sure thing that Jesus actually spoke those words. I also dont' know that it matters. Whether he said it or whether some later writer came up with a really good turn of phrase, the message is equally important.

And of course there have been great Christian mystics who conceived of God in a particularly evolved (and some would say Jewish) way. But that's not what the local parish priests and monks were teaching the rank and file. If you're using the metaphor of a big pi$$ed off guy to scare 99% of your followers, then I think you have to own that dogma. Prior to the Council of Nicea, there were lots of great Christian gnostics whose thinking was downright Eastern and/or mystical (Gospel of Thomas comes to mind)...but they didn't make the cut and ended up being destroyed as heresy. That doesn't speak to a particularly evolved church to me. Plus, just the symbolism of calling God the "father" reinforces the notion.

I prefer those who stress that what makes the divine the divine is our inability to label, quantify, or really conceptualize it. If you can describe it, it ain't God.

I'm just yapping here...I hope no one's taking what I say too seriously. I just dig talking religion...not trying to pick any fights or insult anyone's beliefs.
--
Rev. Tim