Martial Arts & Religion

[Shaolin Wookie]

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

I'm calling BS on this statement, because common sense is anything but common, and there are a lot of idiots out there whose reason is flawed.....and their perception of reality and truth is dependent on their close-minded, ethnocentric, sexist, bigoted, cultural monism.

Common sense, by its "commonality", is not a privatized affair. It involves "public" matters, "public" concerns, and democratic rationality.

[tattooedmonk]

Do not believe something because everyone says it or believes it or because it is tradition , believe it only if you find it to be useful and true.

[Lucas]

Regardless of how it goes, we all know it wasnt meant for idiots and morons

I for one can take either statement to heart, as I do value my own senses to be adequate...

[Shaolin Wookie]

Regardless of how it goes, we all know it wasnt meant for idiots and morons

I for one can take either statement to heart, as I do value my own senses to be adequate...

Yeah, but we could put that statement into the mouth of George W. Bush and it'd take on a whole new meaning, right?

[NJM]

It is interesting to note that it is only Christianity in which Satan is an enemy of God.

Sa-tan is subordinate to God in Christianity as well, this was merely warped by the RCC.

Big bang I bet ha what a joke.

Stop before you give a whole group of people a bad name.

[jacksawild]

I'm calling BS on this statement, because common sense is anything but common, and there are a lot of idiots out there whose reason is flawed.....and their perception of reality and truth is dependent on their close-minded, ethnocentric, sexist, bigoted, cultural monism.

Common sense, by its "commonality", is not a privatized affair. It involves "public" matters, "public" concerns, and democratic rationality.

Yeah, but we could put that statement into the mouth of George W. Bush and it'd take on a whole new meaning, right?

I think that we have to accept that each of us has a perception of reality which is real to us. By the same token I think we could all be considered idiots whose reason is flawed based on our own biases, realtively speaking of course. I think it was Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Do not believe something because everyone says it or believes it or because it is tradition , believe it only if you find it to be useful and true.

There are many differing translations getting at the same meaning all giving the sense of similar intent.

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

My understanding of it is that it is a warning against literal dogmatism. If you take these words, or indeed any words, too literally and view them as immutable law then you have missed the point of intent behind them. Which leads on to my next point.

Sa-tan is subordinate to God in Christianity as well, this was merely warped by the RCC.

Isn't it funny how the same teachings can be interpreted in such vastly different ways and over time the divide becomes so ingrained that it becomes dangerous and all sides begin to view their interpretation as more important than the intended good meant by the words, i.e Love one another. Perhaps there was a reason that Christ didn't write any books.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Perhaps there was a reason that Christ didn't write any books.

Not to get ****ty, but considering the availability of literacy to the impoverished Jews repressed under Roman colonization and the fact that Christ surrounded himself with a tax-collector, a doctor, a fisherman who could write, and Mark (I don't think we ever get his profession, do we?), the probability is that Christ couldn't read or write. We don't see him reading; we have a peripatetic rabbi who argued extempore and debated orally. Personally, the idea that a fisherman could read and write is to me kind of ridiculous, so I chalk his gospel up to spurious origins, amongst other reasons. There's a reason that it's an ex-Roman soldier who wrote the larger portion of the New Testament. And, there's likely a reason we don't have Hebrew gospels, but rather later Greek "translations". There is a strong likelihood that the gospels were the sublimation of an oral Christian culture. Chrisitianity never looks good on paper; its success has always relied on the spoken word.

[David Jamieson]

The statement from buddha is often misinterpreted to support a lazy mind.

as in: "what's that? believe nothing? ok! I won't "...


when in fact, what it means is "do your due diligence, investigate, and do the work to set the foundation for belief if there is a question of belief being raised."

or "don't participate in blind faith because it exhibits and nurtures a lazy mind".

[jacksawild]

Not to get ****ty, but considering the availability of literacy to the impoverished Jews repressed under Roman colonization and the fact that Christ surrounded himself with a tax-collector, a doctor, a fisherman who could write, and Mark (I don't think we ever get his profession, do we?), the probability is that Christ couldn't read or write. We don't see him reading; we have a peripatetic rabbi who argued extempore and debated orally. Personally, the idea that a fisherman could read and write is to me kind of ridiculous, so I chalk his gospel up to spurious origins, amongst other reasons. There's a reason that it's an ex-Roman soldier who wrote the larger portion of the New Testament. And, there's likely a reason we don't have Hebrew gospels, but rather later Greek "translations". There is a strong likelihood that the gospels were the sublimation of an oral Christian culture. Chrisitianity never looks good on paper; its success has always relied on the spoken word.

good point... well made.

Unless that is that you believe JC to be ManGod. Then he'd have known everything.

[kwaichang]

Christ was not a fisherman he was the son of a Carpenter on earth and God in Heaven he was literate as it was the custom for Jewish children to learn the Torah well anyway as usual SW got it wrong and the NT was written partially up to 100 years after the death of Christ and compiled much later as the Bible. by King James Ie: King James version. Some of the letters to the Corinthians were written earlier. KC
Let me ask this if a man believes strongly enough and was an eye witness to Christ and his word do you think he would be Flayed or Crucified upside down or Stonned to death???

[David Jamieson]

good point... well made.

Unless that is that you believe JC to be ManGod. Then he'd have known everything.

Yeshua Bar Joseph, being a rabbi would know how to read and how to write and how to articulate in multiple languages. he spoke with his country in Aramaic and he spoke to those who occupied his country in their tongue which was Latin.

If we say he was a historical figure, which is difficult actually, believe it or not, then we have to take it for granted that he was literate.

However, I think it needs to be understood that many of the writings about Jesus were edited and redacted out of the canonical texts of what is the bible now.

Not to mention the huge errors in translation from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, which would make the king james bible the least reliable one of them all.

For instance, where King James says that he was born of a virgin, the original hebrew merely says "young girl",As in "he was born of a young girl".

YOu see how this small error has caused such a huge error down the road.

It is also worthy of note that the feverishly faithful are the least scholarly about religion. No matter what it is. Education has this thing about developing a critical mind which in turn really tests faith in an individual.

Not saying we are scholars here, or even theologians, but I am guessing that one or two of us has some religious studies under our belts. I would also say that one or two of us are coming at the debate from a position of knowing only that which is dogmatically imposed upon us or indoctrinated within us. Cest La Vie.

[kwaichang]

Yes born of a young girl or Virgin as if she werent she would have been a prostitute and or Stoned to death and considering the Jewish faith and customs the latter would be more likely. Unless she were protected by some devine intervention. Heck all we have is given by God and his son Jesus who is God in human form. KC

[jacksawild]

The term rabbi is used toward Jesus as a sign of respect, it means teacher in this context. If he were chinese maybe he'd have been called sifu. He certainly wasn't part of the Jewish priest class as is evidenced by the whole Caiphus debacle. i.e How dare a common man come to our holy city and preach his dangerous ideas... let's get the Romans to kill him.

Not wishing to speak for SW but I don't think he was saying that Christ's profession was a fisherman he was talking about the 'alleged' gospel writers.

Then it all becomes murky depending on how you think the gospels came about; the most popular theory is the two-source theory. Matthew, Luke and John come from one source and Mark form a different source. The gospel of Mark is the most Pauline and there are errors of geography when it talks about the holy lands suggesting it was written by someone who never visited there.

[golden arhat]

Christ was not a fisherman he was the son of a Carpenter on earth and God in Heaven he was literate as it was the custom for Jewish children to learn the Torah well anyway as usual SW got it wrong and the NT was written partially up to 100 years after the death of Christ and compiled much later as the Bible. by King James Ie: King James version. Some of the letters to the Corinthians were written earlier. KC
Let me ask this if a man believes strongly enough and was an eye witness to Christ and his word do you think he would be Flayed or Crucified upside down or Stonned to death???

the king james bible was not written by king james stupid

it was written by shakespeare

[golden arhat]

Heck all we have is given by God and his son Jesus who is God in human form. KC

ummmm i'm pretty sure thats not the truth

but enjoy delusion anyway