Martial Arts & Religion

[Scott R. Brown]

she smells like honey, vanilla, death and new babies.

What about sampaguita?

The most heavenly smell on earth!!!

[Syn7]

There was a writer, goes by the name of Vox Day, he wrote a book called the "Irrational atheist" in which is basically showed that the stats and views used by the "new atheists" were incorrect and did that by using ACTUAL stats, with links to them of course.
It's been awhile since I read it but I am pretty sure it addresses what you mention ( but don't hold me to that).
I suggest you get it as it is an interesting read, even if you don't agree with the religious POV he has or his rather arrogant mode at times.

Do you have a link to those stats by the way?

K. maybe I can find it at the library.

Naw it was a booklet from a friend at UBC. If I think of it when I'm there again I'll scan it and email it to you.


No I wouldn't be offended. Averages are just that, averages. You can't pigeon hole individuals the way you can with general stats. I know that, so it just doesn't hit me personally unless it causes some realization within me that helps me recognize a fault that I was previously unaware of. It does go down that way sometimes but for the most part that just isn't the case.

Anywhoo. Organized religion has a way of attracting people who aren't so independent. Even you, SJ, can see the glaring contradictions in the major orgs. I know you see them cause you've mentioned it a ton. So when you take stats of "the flock" and you take stats from independent thinkers with a sense of spirituality you see quite a difference. But when all those end up under the same umbrella, the flock brings down the average.

And simply put, progressive thinking has always been a crucial element in the process of discovery and foreword movement, positive and negative. Anyone satisfied with their lot and feels the world should stay the same because they are satisfied has given up on themselves and mos def given up on those in need. A few token donation to feather some priests nest don't count as good works.

That being said, organized religion has done some very good things. But in my opinion it's a bad trade for the righteous. Those of a spiritual mind are far better served by acknowledging certain truths about the world we live in and doing good without that trade off.

In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty - Thomas Jefferson

[Syn7]

Personal revelation?

Public revelation! I think we've had enough personal revelation for now. No more applicants please.

[Scott R. Brown]

And simply put, progressive thinking has always been a crucial element in the process of discovery and foreword movement, positive and negative. Anyone satisfied with their lot and feels the world should stay the same because they are satisfied has given up on themselves and mos def given up on those in need.

You do not have a clear understanding of the progressive movement. This is where the confusion occurs for many people. They think, "Wait! Who wouldn't be for progress?" But that is not what progressivism is. It is a fascist movement working towards an ideal society where the government controls all activity of its citizenry. It is not about progress, it is about control and tyranny. I recommend you educate yourself on the subject.

As to the general idea of progress, whose idea of progress do we follow, and how will it be implemented? One major characteristic of nature is variety. Variety is necessary for creativity and progress to occur. If an "educated" minority attempt to force their ideal onto others "for their own good" and all "must" conform to you end up with a fascist system, for "the good of all".

That sounds good if you are in the minority making the rules and getting all the privileges, as occurred in the communist and fascist regimes of the recent past, not so good for the other 99.9999% of the population who want freedom of choice and action.

[sanjuro_ronin]

No I wouldn't be offended. Averages are just that, averages. You can't pigeon hole individuals the way you can with general stats. I know that, so it just doesn't hit me personally unless it causes some realization within me that helps me recognize a fault that I was previously unaware of. It does go down that way sometimes but for the most part that just isn't the case.

Your ego is more enlightened than mine

Anywhoo. Organized religion has a way of attracting people who aren't so independent. Even you, SJ, can see the glaring contradictions in the major orgs. I know you see them cause you've mentioned it a ton. So when you take stats of "the flock" and you take stats from independent thinkers with a sense of spirituality you see quite a difference. But when all those end up under the same umbrella, the flock brings down the average.

I concur.

And simply put, progressive thinking has always been a crucial element in the process of discovery and foreword movement, positive and negative. Anyone satisfied with their lot and feels the world should stay the same because they are satisfied has given up on themselves and mos def given up on those in need. A few token donation to feather some priests nest don't count as good works.

Some of the most progressive thinkers were and are religious.

That being said, organized religion has done some very good things. But in my opinion it's a bad trade for the righteous. Those of a spiritual mind are far better served by acknowledging certain truths about the world we live in and doing good without that trade off.

I have far too many issues with organized religion than I ever care to mention but I can sum it up to this:
God tells us this: The means justify the end.
Organized religion tell us this: The end justifies the means.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Public revelation! I think we've had enough personal revelation for now. No more applicants please.

See, you THINK there is a difference from public and personal but there isn't because unless that public revelation happens to EVERYONE at the SAME TIME and ALWAYS IS happening and that everyone ACCEPTS what they are seeing, what you still have is heresay.

It can be argued that Jesus most certainly did reveal God in a public way, at least to those that saw Him and what he did, even more so after the resurrection of course.
It can be argued that God revealed Himself when he freed the Hebrews and the events that were subsrcibed to his power.
And yet some still disbelieved in not only those cases but pretty much any case you can think of.

There is also the possibility that God does not choose or want to reveal Himself to ALL.

So, while it is great to say that "public revelation" is the evidence one needs, it still amounts to personal revelation and what one is really saying is that, " I want God to reveal Himself to me in a way that I can't deny that He is God".

[sanjuro_ronin]

It is the same in MA.
You can hear that a given MA is effective and may even believe it base don what you see and from those in which you put trust in their opinion, but the only time you "know for sure" is when you experience it personally.
In that MA and religion are the same: both deal with personal experience and revelation and those that base their MA/religion on that have SOEMTHING of a core, but those that simply take someone elses word for it, they will always be in the "darK'.

[Drake]

That's not evidence. That's mind****ing yourself.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's not evidence. That's mind****ing yourself.

Hence my question to you ( you in the group sense) as to what you would consider evidence.

[Lucas]

it has to be like far side comics. i want the clouds to part, and an giant bearded god to point down at me with his divine digit and say 'you believe'

[sanjuro_ronin]

it has to be like far side comics. i want the clouds to part, and an giant bearded god to point down at me with his divine digit and say 'you believe'

LMAO !
Heck, that'll freak me out !

[Lucas]

LMAO !
Heck, that'll freak me out !

there would be no denying tho lol

[sanjuro_ronin]

there would be no denying tho lol

Yeah, but that would be a personal revelation though dude.

[Drake]

Hence my question to you ( you in the group sense) as to what you would consider evidence.

If I had a personal revelation that the planet Neptune was actually a planet eating transformer named Unicron, would that be held up in any scientific community?

Even if I REALLY, REALLY believed it with ALL MY HEART?

[sanjuro_ronin]

If I had a personal revelation that the planet Neptune was actually a planet eating transformer named Unicron, would that be held up in any scientific community?

Even if I REALLY, REALLY believed it with ALL MY HEART?

Still haven't answered my question dude, what would you consider evidence then?