Christian or Nonspiritual Martial Arts?
Pam Crouch
into a long explanation of why, but I'm concerned about the spiritual aspect
of martial arts, so does anyone know what branches (if any) are not
spiritual and have classes for kids? On Monday, I'm planning to take him to
a Tukong Moosul class, which I've been assured does not contain Buddhist
teachings, but I want to see for myself. Has anyone researched this?
Thanks,
--Pam :o)
Kevin Craig
<jaso...@nospammingswbell.net> wrote:
My personal experience is limited to a few years of Tae Kwon Do in my
teens, a continued vague interest, plus lots of professional training
in self defense techniques, mostly based around Akido.
You're right to be concerned, but you needn't be overly concerned. A
well grounded Christian can overlook most spiritual overtones in the
martial arts as being more philosophical than spiritual.
Yes, there are some styles with profound spirituality. Judo is fairly
agnostic, while lesser-known styles are practically cults. I've found
that there's a bigger difference between instructors than between
styles, however. If you live in any but a very rural area, your yellow
pages will probably yield at least one instructor who advertises as
Christian.
If your son needs instruction for practical reasons, then I urge the
"soft", or at least "blended" styles: akido, judo, hwarang-do, etc.
Most of the kung fu styles are too stylistic to be practical, and most
of the "hard" styles (shotokan karate, tae kwon do, etc.) rely too much
on physical skills, making them impractical for any but the strongest
and fastest.
If he needs to join in for social reasons ("Mo-o-o-o-om! EVERYbody is
taking it!"), then he's probably leaning towards tae kwon do, which is
a huge money-making machine. It's got little to do with learning a
martial art, and everything to do with conning parents out of money.
Don't get me wrong, I started in TKD with a very ethical instructor,
who taught from love of the sport. It's a dynamic, exciting style, and
kids' natural flexibility and energy makes it well suited for children.
But, most schools have turned into "belt mills", where fees paid count
for more than skills displayed.
Here's my personal rule: if there's a pre-teen black belt in the
school, RUN!
Kevin
Wendy Barker
"Pam Crouch" <jaso...@nospammingswbell.net> wrote in message
news:l1uvc.2180$qp2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
My cousins teach a method of TKD under a group called Warriors for Christ.
(I think that is the right name.) I sat in on one of their classes last
month when we were visiting. It is completely Christian in its basis, and
nationwide. I looked at the website when I got home, but there isn't a
class or teacher available this far north. :(
I didn't save the link and now I can't find the site I went to.
I should probably let Rebekah Staggs respond to you.
Good luck!
Wendy Barker
Michael S. Morris
Thursday, the 3rd of June, 2004
Pam Crouch wrote:
My son needs to do some kind of wrestling or martial
arts. I won't launch into a long explanation of why,
but I'm concerned about the spiritual aspect of
martial arts, so does anyone know what branches (if
any) are not spiritual and have classes for kids? [...]
I guess I'd like to read your "long explanation of why".
That is, it seems to me in the first place that Buddha
was a great religious teacher and that somewhat in the way
that Jesus is to Judaism, Buddha is to Hinduism (moral
teacher, but also the shower of a kinder, gentler path within
a rather stultified religious system, also their respective believers
believe that Jesus and the Buddha were divine). But, of course,
the shall we say doctrinal aspects of Buddhism are not taught
as necessary components of any martial arts that I know of.
And yet, the spirituality, the sort of cleansing of the
mind of rationalistic dichotomies to become one with
one's sword or fists or whatever, seems to me perfectly
consonant with lots of Christian teaching about letting go
the self and the wisdom of the world and becoming as a child.
Moreover, this Eastern spirituality also seems to me not
all the heck that exotic, but perfectly consonant with
ordinary experience within Western culture. That is, I'll bet
that John Rice's sons have not come to play as beautifully
as they do without actually attaining the equivalent of
Zen meditative states. You work through simple skills in
playing an instrument, or in martial arts, by repetitive
drill, but the whole point is to get to where the technique
is beyond having to rationally think about it and is all
automatic, and if your mind is then directing it at all,
it is directing it from a whole higher level of
interpretation of the piece of music. My experience
of playing music, or singing it, in my humble capacity,
or learning to dance ballroom dances at the moment,
or my experience of doing mathematics has been on occasion
"spiritual" in this sense.
Umm, by the way, fencing is a perfectly martial art
that develops great athleticism. So is boxing. I
think anything done well *necessarily* develops a
spiritual component, but, anyway, these at least don't
have an overtly Eastern mysticism associated with them.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Pam Crouch
I can figure. Supposedly used by the Korean military?
Yes, I've seen that some places give belts out like there's no tomorrow.
I'll be on the lookout for that. Thanks for the run-down. If you hear of
any Christian martial arts places operating in the Austin, TX area, I'd be
interested. My son is supposed to go for his first time on Monday to Tukong
Moosul with Master Yi. www.masteryi.com
--Pam :o)
"Kevin Craig" <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:020620042226427043%kbc...@pobox.com...
Pam Crouch
news:40BF5FE...@netdirect.net...
> I guess I'd like to read your "long explanation of why".
> Mike Morris
> (msmo...@netdirect.net)
>
>
Well, first of all, we think he might have sensory integration disorder.
We're going to have him evaluated soon (they haven't told us when yet.)
Since he feels out of sync a lot of the time, I think that training his body
to move in certain ways would make him feel more in control of his body, and
help his self-esteem, which has suffered a lot recently. He just finished
preschool, and I think it became pretty obvious to him while he was there
that he's very different from other kids. He's reluctant to try a lot of
sports, but he *loves* fighting and wrestling, so maybe martial arts can be
his "physical epiphany." I was a complete klutz until I got into dance,
which just sort of clicked for me. I felt much more in control of my body,
and was no longer afraid I was going to knock something over every time I
turned around.
Another reason I already sort of mentioned is that he just seems to crave
the rough physical contact. He's so rough now that his own dad won't even
take him on. My husband would need a face guard and definitely a cup. :o)
We are pretty sedate around here, so I think it's just something innate.
He's never seen any kind of violence on TV other than Tom & Jerry or Looney
Toons. However, he likes to come up with hand-to-hand combat strategies.
He was wrestling with the child of a friend of mine (with both my friends'
and my permission) and my son saw that he was about to be knocked to the
ground. So to avoid being pinned, he threw himself to the ground, put his
feet up, and pushed the other kid away with his feet. Another time, he was
wrestling with my husband, and he said, "See, first you punch them in the
stomach to distract them, and then you tackle them." I was amazed he would
come up with something like that, because none of us have ever discussed
combat techniques. Unlike other physical activities, where he gets
frustrated or discouraged easily (probably because of his sensory
integration), he will never give up or get upset when wrestling. He seems
perfectly at ease and in control, which, if you knew him, would be
impressive.
Another thing is my son's size. He's over 49 inches tall and weighs about
70 lbs, but he's 5. He's very tall and muscular for his age. He has always
been strong, even as a fetus (I kid you not!) I knew that he would figure
out how to use his size against others, and he already has. :o( I'd like
to teach him that it's not right to push other kids around just because you
are bigger than they are (and even if they are also three years older than
you.) I'm hoping that if he has a stronger sense of control that that will
give him confidence. I really think it's the low self-esteem that is
causing him to misbehave on the playground. He went into preschool afraid
of all the other kids, and now he just tries to irritate them and push them
around. I hope that if an older male tells him that you should use your
strength and fighting abilities only for good purposes, he'll be more
persuaded than if it's just mommy telling him to "be nice." He's changed a
lot in his interactions with other kids over the past couple of months. Now
that he understands that he can use his strength, I want him to learn to use
it only for good. Like the Force. :o)
Oddly enough, when we went to the local rec center to sign up for swimming
lessons, they guy at the desk asked if I had considered martial arts for my
son.
--Pam :o)
____________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/austinmetrogifts/
A group for homeschoolers of the gifted in Austin and the surrounding area.
Brandon
Thank you for the fascinating post.
Your son seems to me to have a very healthy, male aggressive personality
about him, at least as far as his fondness of roughhousing goes. You are
right to want to get him into a physical discipline. Rather than let his
physical aggressiveness develop wildly, it is a great idea to get him into a
martial arts discipline to put his body completely under his mind's control.
Tae Kwon Do is probably a good bet. If you find a good school that isn't
just a belt mill, he will be taught forms that will get him to make his body
do what he wants it to do. Some people might think forms are boring, but
for someone as physical as your son is, I think it would really be great for
him. I am no expert like my wife, but when I am working on my form, I am
focusing quite a bit on technique and preciseness, which is just good
training for the body. And he will love the sparring.
The only drawback is that TKD focuses pretty much just formal sparring.
While there is self defense education, it's mostly kicking and punching
training -- not street fighting skill like what you would get with
Jiu-Jitsu. If he likes rolling around, something like that might be good.
The problem I have with Jiu-Jitsu is that almost everyone who I have known
who has trained in it is arrogant and cocky about it.
I think ATA Tae Kwon Do is the way to go, personally. American TaeKwonDo
Association schools usually have a lot of good stuff focused on kids (Tiny
Tigers, Karate for Kids...) and ATA forms are more interesting (IMO) than
the other school I am familiar with (Word TKD Federation).
I haven't personally seen any TKD schools that involve any pagan mysticism,
though I am sure many do exist. It shouldn't be too hard to detect and
avoid that, though.
I'll try to get my wife to chime in here since she is currently working
towards a teaching certification in ATA and can offer more advice than me.
--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com
Rebekah Staggs
news:c9qud...@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Pam Crouch" <jaso...@nospammingswbell.net> wrote in message
> news:nm6wc.2587$Xy2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com
> > suffered a lot recently. He just finished preschool, and I think it
> > became pretty obvious to him while he was there that he's very
> > different from other kids. He's reluctant to try a lot of sports,
> > but he *loves* fighting and wrestling, so maybe martial arts can be
> > his "physical epiphany." I was a complete klutz until I got into
I highly suggest The American Tae Kwon Do Association.
http://www.ataonline.com/about/index.asp
They have a very extensive Tiny Tigers (4-6) and Karate for Kids (6-8)
program that focuses on young students. It is not a Christian organization,
however many of the people in it are professing Christians.
The degree of quality you'll get will depend per school, but the more I see
of it the more I am impressed with the structure and set up. To become an
instructor and own a school you have to not only have earned a black belt...
but done 100-300 hrs of teaching UNDER another instructor. I have montly
tests on the qualities of a leader that include things about trust,
integrity, honor, as well different ways to teach all the forms. And
instructors don't just become one and thats all they have to worry about.
They must stay up on their own learning as well with seminars and tests to
maintain their standings. They are accountable to a senior rank above them
as well.
> > He's changed a lot in his interactions with other kids over the past
> > couple of months. Now that he understands that he can use his
> > strength, I want him to learn to use it only for good. Like the
> > Force. :o)
A lot about martial arts is self control.
> Tae Kwon Do is probably a good bet. If you find a good school that isn't
> just a belt mill, he will be taught forms that will get him to make his
body
> do what he wants it to do. Some people might think forms are boring, but
> for someone as physical as your son is, I think it would really be great
for
> him. I am no expert like my wife, but when I am working on my form, I am
> focusing quite a bit on technique and preciseness, which is just good
>
For myself being able to spar and punch things is a great release of energy.
I find it helps me to control my temper better. I find forms a challenge
because each new form grows upon the last and pushes your mind to control
your body to do each new movement the right way.
> training for the body. And he will love the sparring.
I agree. We have a 8 year old in our class who can break boards like paper
and doesn't hesitate to spar someone twice his size...I know he's sparred me
and the little guy can kick... yet knows to take it easy and control himself
when sparring with those that are a lower rank/smaller/younger than him.
Like our son. And is now a role model for his own peers as he is a helper in
what used to be his class.
>
> The only drawback is that TKD focuses pretty much just formal sparring.
> While there is self defense education, it's mostly kicking and punching
> training -- not street fighting skill like what you would get with
It does do self-defense and joint manipulation. There are 1-3 per belt that
you learn, Although some of the higher ranks in our school also do jiu-jitsu
and a different teacher comes in for that. Like Brandon says unfortunately
far too many of the people that are in Jiu-jitsu these days are hot-heads .
But you said your son is just out of pre-school? I'd suggest something where
he's more hitting something soft/padded than grappling just yet. :)
Oh yeah, yes there are teenagers that are black belts and under-teens too in
our school. But I've watched them and each one of them has earned it. If
they test and can't do what they are suppose to then they don't pass. We do
do a lot of belts in our school. More belts than most. We do mid-term belts
when you're higher up. I find that helps to keep more students going past
the "rough spots" rather than dropping out.
I am a 1st Degree Black Belt Decided. I have been taking TKD for 6 1/2
years. Brandon and our son Nathan also take it so its a whole family deal
for us.
The main headquarters for our school is in Arkansas, I know for a fact there
are ATA schools in Texas. I found 4 in the Austin Area alone. Our school
was just down there last month or the month before for a tournament. And
they come up here and compete agianst ours. Kansas has several schools as
well. I could ask my teacher if she knows any of the instructors in TX or
if she suggests one more than another. If you have any questions you want to
ask me more feel free to PM me as well.
http://www.ataonline.com/schools/schoolsearch.asp should make it easy for
you to find a school near you.
Aloha, Rebekah
Ray Drouillard
"Brandon" <go...@website.insig.foremail> wrote in message
news:c9qud...@news1.newsguy.com...
In addition to TaeKwonDo, you might consider Judo. Judo, IIRC, was
developed from Jiu-Jitsu. The main difference is that the striking
(punching and kicking) has been removed. It consists of mat work (much
like wrestling), throws, falls, chokes, and arm bars. It isn't designed
to be a self-defense technique. Rather, it's more of a formalized
sport -- like wrestling or boxing.
It can be useful for self-defense, but the biggest benefit I have gotten
from it is the ability to recover gracefully from a fall. Most people
attempt to stop a fall with the elbow. This can cause lots of problems,
like dislocated shoulders and shattered bones. In Judo, we are taught
to absorb the impact with a large area, so that it is spread out. Also,
slapping the ground reduces the impact somewhat.
If your son craves rough contact, the high-contact aspects of Judo
should appeal to him. Rather than standing back and throwing or
blocking punches or kicks, he will be in contact with his sparring
partner pretty well throughout the match.
Ray
Kevin Craig
<go...@website.insig.foremail> wrote:
> The problem I have with Jiu-Jitsu is that almost everyone who I have known
> who has trained in it is arrogant and cocky about it.
I suspect that's a recent phenomenon attributable to the various
"Ultimate Fighting Championship", et al., matches in which the Gracies
have dominated. While their techniques are effective, it's their
totally gonzo, go-for-the-kill style that has let them dominate.
And when the macho kinda dudes who sit around watching human blood
sports decide to seek formal training, they're going to emulate the
winner. Thus, cocky arrogance is perpuated.
Kevin
Rebekah Staggs
Thats pretty much it in a nutshell. Its sad really. I've met one of the
Gracie students who was ranked in the top 3 in the world for jiu-jitsu and
he was the nice, meek, gentle type of guy outside of the ring. Humble too
about his sport and style. But a lot of his students and the students of
other schools were the macho in your face type. To the point of being
destructive to the property of other types of schools. Its sad to see that
type of thing in any Martial Arts school.
RS
Rebekah Staggs
news:2ikog3F...@uni-berlin.de...
> In addition to TaeKwonDo, you might consider Judo. Judo, IIRC, was
> developed from Jiu-Jitsu. The main difference is that the striking
> (punching and kicking) has been removed. It consists of mat work (much
> like wrestling), throws, falls, chokes, and arm bars. It isn't designed
> to be a self-defense technique. Rather, it's more of a formalized
> sport -- like wrestling or boxing.
If you re-read she mentions just finishing pre-school so its a pretty young
kid we're talking about here.
Something I just thought of too might be gymnastics. Our son also did that
and loved it. Now its not as rough and tumble as martial arts, but it is
also good for self control and burns some energy. For younger students its
a lot of ground work like tumbling and such.
I always thought Jiu-Jitsu came from Judo. My Dad did Judo when he was
younger. I hadn't heard of Jiu-Jitsu until later... then agian... it
probably just wasn't as popular untiil the UFC came out.
R.
Kanga Mum
> "Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote in message
> news:40BF5FE...@netdirect.net...
> > I guess I'd like to read your "long explanation of why".
> <big snip>
> > Mike Morris
> > (msmo...@netdirect.net)
> >
> >
>
>
Arts]
Pam, I don't think Mike was asking to hear your explanatino of why
Martial Arts. I could be wrong, but I suspect that as an atheist, he
wanted to know what the nonspiritual stuff was all about and the whys
and wherefores of that.
Or maybe you knew that, but this was your polite way of avoiding such
a discussion? <g>
Kanga
Ray Drouillard
"Rebekah Staggs" <reb...@swordsearcher.com> wrote in message
news:ca3kt...@news3.newsguy.com...
I won't claim any expansive knowledge on the subject. However, the
friend who introduced me to Judo tells me that Jiu-Jitsu was invented by
some monks who, for religious reasons, had to remain unarmed. They used
it for self-defense.
I can ask Scott to send me a better explanation if anyone is interested.
Ray
Michael S. Morris
Tuesday, the 8th of June, 2004
I wrote:
I guess I'd like to read your "long
explanation of why".
[snip Pams' explanation of why her son would
benefit from Martial Arts]
Kanga:
Pam, I don't think Mike was asking to hear your
explanatino of why Martial Arts. I could be wrong,
but I suspect that as an atheist, he wanted to know
what the nonspiritual stuff was all about and the whys
and wherefores of that.
That was what I was responding to. Pam wrote:
My son needs to do some kind of wrestling or martial
arts. I won't launch into a long explanation of why,
but I'm concerned about the spiritual aspect
of martial arts, [...]
I took her to mean "I won't launch into a long explanation
of why I'm concerned about the spiritual aspect of
martial arts, but I am concerned." Apparently she meant
rather "I won't launch into a long explanation of
why my son needs to do some kind of wrestling
or martial arts, but I'm concerned about the spiritual
aspect of martial arts." I plainly misread her.
In either event, I'm still puzzled by this concern
"about the spiritual aspect".
I was connecting to your story, Kanga, about your daughter's
school in Okinawa visiting a local temple there and how you
made waves with the school because you didn't give your
daughter permission to do that. See, *that* I think
I understand. Me, I love to visit temples and churches and
cathedrals when I travel. It's because I don't worship whatever
is worshipped there, but I love the art and architecture and
I'm curious about what it all signifies to the people who
*do* take it seriously. I don't particularly want to offend them,
it being their place of worship, after all, and not mine, but
I approach it as something that *I* consider neither fraught with
spiritual elevation or with spiritual peril. I consider Delphi
to be an especially moving place on this planet for myself,
whereas my memory of the Rock of Golgotha (in the Church of
the holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in one corner thereof---it
may have been the Greek Orthodox corner where there was this
brass-ringed hole in the floor and you could pay a few shekels
and stick your hand down through the hole and feel the clammy rock
beneath) to have all the spirituality of one of those molded
plastic souvenirs. You, on the other hand, are Christian, and
are under some normative rule (well, clearly, it is highly
debatable whether it is necessarily Christian per se to be
under such a rule, but your interpretation of things is
that you ought) not to participate in any way (if I recall correctly
your daughter was going to be asked to light an incense candle)
in a false mode of worship. Anyway, there is something that I
respect that is different to your approach to that Okinawan
temple than would be my approach to it, something that matters
to you which does not matter to me.
OK, my point: I don't recognize the same thing in "martial-arts'
spirituality" as I do in that Okinawan temple. The "spirituality"
of martial arts isn't worship, and certainly does not seem
to me to be un-Christian, or even outside the ken of Christian
experience. Leastways, that's what I would think from only
limited personal acquaintance. So, I was wondering what Pam was
afraid of with respect to this "spirituality" thing. Is it
specifically some kind of teaching of doctrine that she thinks
won't fit with her teaching of her son that is the concern? Is
it "spirituality" in general?
There's another aspect to this that I find frankly a little funny:
That is, I read to Martha my first post on this, where I
mentioned fencing and boxing as two perfectly Western martial-arts
alternatives to the Eastern stuff (Pam had already listed wrestling).
This prompted a lengthy conversation which began with Martha
snorting at boxing. Her doing so is nothing new (and I
am anything but a boxing fan), but I was in a mood to argue
it this time, and I argued this is a common prejudice, but
that boxing is real fighting, and it takes bodily strength and
quickness all-round athleticism. She responded with her usual
line that it is the only sport where you actually *try* and
cause brain-damage to your opponent. And I responded by saying
the goal isn't necessarily brain damage in a knockout---it can
be just physically wearing the other guy down. And, besides,
look at the rate of serious injuries among equestrian eventers.
It's unclear that boxing on average is intrinsically more dangerous
than that. And so on.
See, I have the feeling that boxing is somewhat declasse, that
despite the fact it has no "Eastern mysticism" baggage whatsoever
to go with it, and that it's a perfectly fine martial art with
lots of training and skill and intelligence to it, and that you
can get hurt bad in any other sport, my bet is almost every
mother I know would cheerfully enroll her son in tae kwon do
or karate or judo or jiu jitsu but would flat out veto boxing.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Stainless Steel Streetrat
<msmo...@netdirect.net> writes:
> bet is almost every
>mother I know would cheerfully enroll her son in tae kwon do
>or karate or judo or jiu jitsu but would flat out veto boxing.
My brother took boxing <wg>. I learned how to fall <g>.
Stainless Steel Streetrat
-----------------------------------
"Living is the best revenge" - Conan the Barbarian
Jayne Kulikauskas
[]
> See, I have the feeling that boxing is somewhat declasse, that
> despite the fact it has no "Eastern mysticism" baggage whatsoever
> to go with it, and that it's a perfectly fine martial art with
> lots of training and skill and intelligence to it, and that you
> can get hurt bad in any other sport, my bet is almost every
> mother I know would cheerfully enroll her son in tae kwon do
> or karate or judo or jiu jitsu but would flat out veto boxing.
My dad was a boxer when he was in college. He even won some kind of
championship back then. So boxing has positive associations for me. I
wouldn't have problems with one of my kids doing it.
Jayne
Pam Crouch
Well, I wouldn't want a small child of mine taught the principles of
Buddhism any more than I would think you would want your small children
attending Sunday school every Sunday, where they would be taught a lot of
things you disagree with. 'Nuff said.
As for fencing, I have no problem with it other than the "one leg ends up
being bigger than the other" aspect. And as for boxing and wrestling, I
would let my son try it, but it's hard to find places that are willing to
let 5 yo's hit or wrestle each other. For instance, I was at first going to
put him into Krav-Maga, which as you know, is "street fighting with no
rules." However, they don't take kids at all. You have to be sixteen.
--Pam :o)
Michael S. Morris
Tuesday, the 8th of June, 2004
Pam:
Well, I wouldn't want a small child of mine taught the principles of
Buddhism any more than I would think you would want your small children
attending Sunday school every Sunday, where they would be taught a lot of
things you disagree with. 'Nuff said.
No, not really enough said. I mean, besides from my
objection that I doubt any "principles of Buddhism"
likely to be encountered in such a setting would be
in contradiction of any principles of Christianity
you value. But, see, I've been perfectly happy to have my
daughter, Helen, now 12, and then my young son, Galen, now 5,
attend Sunday school every Sunday with their Christian grandmother,
who lives with us. This was their choice to attend, and Martha and
I (neither one of whom can stomach church services more than about
once a year) even have voluntarily done a fair amount of driving of
them into church (so that their grandma can go to choir practice
earlier) for them to do this.
I just don't buy that in matters of belief or opinion
one can indoctrinate successfully. So, I refuse to be
afraid of it. What is good in it, my children can take
into themselves, and what is bad in it, they can reject.
Helen has kind of grown out of it, I think mainly because
riding lessons and horse shows often compete for
her Sunday mornings. But Galen still goes.
I'm simply unconcerned that attending Sunday school
or attending church services will make them Christian.
Moreoever, if they did decide they were Christian,
I'd try to be supportive of that. I definitely want them
to learn about Christianity, to be taught its principles.
For one thing, I'll assign Helen to read the Bible
cover-to-cover this next year in homeschool just as we
did with Zan (this will be in addition to other books
she will be assigned to read as literature).
In any event, I *do not* conceive of my job as parent to
make my kids' opinions or beliefs into carbon copies
of my own beliefs. If they should happen to come out
Christian, I'd say that would be fine by me.
Pam:
As for fencing, I have no problem with it other
than the "one leg ends up being bigger than the
other" aspect.
I guess I've never heard of that. Come to think of it,
though, it doesn't make any sense to me, given the obvious
athleticism and all-around fitness of the higher-level
fencers in Zan's fencing club.
Pam:
And as for boxing and wrestling, I
would let my son try it, but it's hard to find places that are willing to
let 5 yo's hit or wrestle each other.
Hmm. I'm surprised at this---I would have expected at
least wrestling would have a younger kids' venue.
Pam:
For instance, I was at first going to
put him into Krav-Maga, which as you know, is "street fighting with no
rules." However, they don't take kids at all. You have to be sixteen.
No, I've never heard of such a thing, but I can well
understand why you would have to be at least 16. I'd think
for your son, though, what you'd want is something *with*
rules and stylized and with discipline, so that the body is
disciplined by the mind.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Kit Walker
"Pam Crouch" <jaso...@nospammingswbell.net> wrote:
> [...]
> Buddhism any more than I would think you would want your small children
> attending Sunday school every Sunday, where they would be taught a lot of
> things you disagree with. 'Nuff said.
>
> As for fencing, I have no problem with it other than the "one leg ends up
>
> --Pam :o)
As a former state level fencing competitor, I find your dismissal to be
utter rubbish and without merit. The sort of falderal of which urban
legends are fomented. The atheletic ability and endurance required and
awareness of surroundings should not be so lightly dismissed. And he
can always pretend he is Cyrano, Inigo, or (if you still subscribe to
the "one leg ends up bigger" a pegleg) pirate, arrh.
Nevertheless, I am happy for you that he has found something he enjoys.
But next time, do better research.
--
Kit Walker
The Ghost Who Walks
http://www.deepwoods.org/
Pam Crouch
I hesitate to even respond to this, because you seem have taken a
deconstructionist stance to my post. However, in an effort to be polite,
I'll continue. Pehaps, *this* time we can agree to disagree.
As for religion in martial arts, I guess I'll mention that Grand Master Yi
was raised in a temple (ages 5 to 19) and has written a book called
_Zen_and_Ki_Energy_. So there is no doubt that this teacher has a lot of
Buddhism in his background. I'm not just assuming that. If he's going to
be my someone my son admires and comes into contact with a lot, I want to
know exactly what this martial arts school teaches (and how much of a Zen
influence there is). If it's spiritual, then that's an issue. There are
plenty of martial arts schools that teach about the Ki, and discussion and
discipline of the spirit is not something I would delegate to someone who is
not a Christian, because I believe what Jesus said was true: He is the
truth. So, though there is some truth in Buddhism, I don't want my son
latching onto incorrect spiritual ideas at an impressionable age, because I
believe that the whole truth can only be found in Christianity. Anything
else is not perfect truth. If the people perish for lack of knowledge, and
we are to be transformed through the renewing of our minds, then theology
and spiritual teachings are of the utmost importance.
You've got an imperative that says freedom for the child to make up his own
mind is more important than any arbitrary (to you) moral imperative you
could impose on the child, right? But I have "Train up a child in which way
he should go, and he will not depart from it when he is old." (Notice it
doesn't say "when he's a teenager." ;o) ) So, to try to ensure that my
children grow up to be Christians is consistent with my ethic of teaching
them the truth, and of preserving them from corruption.
To you, it's not that important if your child becomes a Buddhist, Christian,
or atheist, you seem to be saying(?) Since you regard all religions to be
false, and therefore of no effect, it is okay to allow the child to choose
their own beliefs, with no influence from you. I can see that would be the
right thing to do if freedom were a higher moral imperative than Christ.
Is it true you can't indoctrinate someone? I can think of some
counterexamples to that idea. I think people have different levels of
mental fortitude, and some are stronger-willed than others, but if you
expose most people to the same information / stimulus enough times over a
period of years, even if they don't like it at first, they will begin to
tolerate it, and then to gradually accept it. People aren't computers, so
it's not like a titration, or anything, but if you couldn't influence
people's minds, there would be no commercials.
So, I guess you are going to disagree with everything I just said now? Can
we agree to disagree this time?
--Pam :o)
MaG Douglas
"Kit Walker" <kitw...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:bc946ebcb846d0c9...@news.teranews.com...
>
> As a former state level fencing competitor, I find your dismissal to be
> utter rubbish and without merit. The sort of falderal of which urban
> legends are fomented. The atheletic ability and endurance required and
> awareness of surroundings should not be so lightly dismissed. And he
> can always pretend he is Cyrano, Inigo, or (if you still subscribe to
> the "one leg ends up bigger" a pegleg) pirate, arrh.
>
Fencing!!! Way cool, dude! That's something I would like to learn myself,
but alas, one only has 24 hours in a day and currently mine are filled. But
maybe someday....
MaG
Pam Crouch
"Kit Walker" <kitw...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:bc946ebcb846d0c9...@news.teranews.com...
I said I had no problem with it. Please do not take offense. None was
intended.
In my defense, I did not make this up:
"Serious fencers usually develop a lopsided body, with one thigh and one arm
noticeably bigger than the other."
http://www.williamtolan.com/fno/fitness/fencing.htm
"Many studies have described the musculoskeletal characteristics of
competitive fencers. Sapega and co-workers studied 24 male members of 1976
United States Olympic fencing squad(22, 23). They noted that the
circumference of extremities of the weapon side has increased with an
average of 5-8% compared to the other side."
http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/drafts/Fencing.doc
--Pam :o)
Kit Walker
"Pam Crouch" <jaso...@nospammingswbell.net> wrote:
> "Kit Walker" <kitw...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> news:bc946ebcb846d0c9...@news.teranews.com...
> > In article <%c%xc.5370$zw5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Pam Crouch" <jaso...@nospammingswbell.net> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Well, I wouldn't want a small child of mine taught the principles of
> > > Buddhism any more than I would think you would want your small children
> > > attending Sunday school every Sunday, where they would be taught a lot
> of
> > > things you disagree with. 'Nuff said.
> > >
> > > As for fencing, I have no problem with it other than the "one leg ends
> up
> > > being bigger than the other" aspect. [...]
> > >
> > > --Pam :o)
> >
> > As a former state level fencing competitor, I find your dismissal to be
> > utter rubbish and without merit. The sort of falderal of which urban
> > legends are fomented. The atheletic ability and endurance required and
> > awareness of surroundings should not be so lightly dismissed. And he
> > can always pretend he is Cyrano, Inigo, or (if you still subscribe to
> > the "one leg ends up bigger" a pegleg) pirate, arrh.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I am happy for you that he has found something he enjoys.
> > But next time, do better research.
>
> I said I had no problem with it. Please do not take offense. None was
> intended.
>
> In my defense, I did not make this up:
> "Serious fencers usually develop a lopsided body, with one thigh and one arm
> noticeably bigger than the other."
> http://www.williamtolan.com/fno/fitness/fencing.htm
>
> "Many studies have described the musculoskeletal characteristics of
> competitive fencers. Sapega and co-workers studied 24 male members of 1976
> United States Olympic fencing squad(22, 23). They noted that the
> circumference of extremities of the weapon side has increased with an
> average of 5-8% compared to the other side."
> http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/drafts/Fencing.doc
I believe I understand the level of commitment that serious (olympic
class) fencers must adhere to and the consequences of a half inch or so
difference. But for most, the lopsided body argument holds no water.
I had prepared quite a rant regarding picking and choosing your
defensive discussion points, but I deleted it after employing the Marty
Carts method of critial thinking. Nevertheless, you ignored the
paragraph that explained how to deal with that issue for the less than
serious (olympic class) fencer. Since I cannot believe that your goal
for your child is an Olympic medal, in whatever sport, I also cannot
believe that this particular concern was THE deciding factor to discard
the sport. If I employed that logic, I would never teach my son how to
repair a toilet, for he MIGHT grow up to be a (horrors) plumber!
I take no offense that you discarded the concept of fencing for your
son, I just sense prevarication in justifying it here. And no, I do not
want to know why you really discarded this or any other sport than the
one that you chose. However, I will remind you that you did come here
and ask for recommendations. Here is mine: Enjoy your son.
Kit Walker
"MaG Douglas" <mag_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I subscribe to the Stainless Steel Street Rat concept of learning. I
want to learn and do it all, but I must pick and choose at this time.
Besides, a fencing scar is much more impressive than an arm or leg cast
from years ago. The other nice feature was when the SCA craze came to
our town. I was able to "school" a few young buck "swordsmen" to proper
dispatch. A flailing attacker is soon mincemeat to the practiced hand.
One almost always starts out with learning foil, but epee is the real
art as far as I am concerned. The difficulty is finding a teacher.
Stainless Steel Streetrat
>
>Well, I wouldn't want a small child of mine taught the principles of
>Buddhism any more than I would think you would want your small children
>attending Sunday school every Sunday, where they would be taught a lot of
>things you disagree with. 'Nuff said.
>
For the record, *none* of the Martial Arts teach Buddhism, its *much* subtler
than that <wg>. So, unless you go *looking* for it, you'll never notice it
<wg>.
Michael S. Morris
Thursday, the 10th of June, 2004
Pam:
I hesitate to even respond to this, because you seem have taken a
deconstructionist stance to my post.
I'm at a total loss for the meaning of the word "deconstructionist"
here. You seemed to think I had some objection to my children
learning Christian doctrine by going to Sunday school. I
don't. You also seemed to think I want my children to grow
up non-Christian. I don't. So, I felt your post required a response
clarifying those things.
Pam:
However, in an effort to be polite,
I'll continue. Pehaps, *this* time we can
agree to disagree.
Pam, we *have* been agreeing to disagree, and
we are about to agree to disagree on some more.
I'm sorry that mere contradiction of what you say
or really mere disagreement, because there hasn't
been much in the way of contradiction even, should
lead to an "effort" to be polite. But, anyway, I
generally respond and state and try to clarify disagreement
where I find it, or where I find it clarifiable.
Pam:
As for religion in martial arts, I guess I'll mention that Grand Master Yi
was raised in a temple (ages 5 to 19) and has written a book called
_Zen_and_Ki_Energy_. So there is no doubt that this teacher has a lot of
Buddhism in his background. I'm not just assuming that. If he's going to
be my someone my son admires and comes into contact with a lot, I want to
know exactly what this martial arts school teaches (and how much of a Zen
influence there is). If it's spiritual, then that's an issue. There are
plenty of martial arts schools that teach about the Ki, and discussion and
discipline of the spirit is not something I would delegate to someone who is
not a Christian, because I believe what Jesus said was true: He is the
truth.
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. That is, in the first place,
granting that Jesus is the truth, this certainly cannot be taken to
mean Jesus is all the truth, since there's truth in 2+2=4 that you
can't get from Jesus. So, we have more truth out there. So, presumably
it would only be teachings that aren't true which you would want your
son not to be taught. Which is a fine thing, I guess (actually it shows
little faith I think that truth itself will by reason
vanquish falsehood, but I grant that kids do not yet have fully
fledged minds, and therefore ought to be protected from some
particularly difficult falsehoods). Anyway, I still haven't heard
anything from you here that necessarily says that Grand Master Yi,
for instance, is teaching anything in conflict or contradiction of
any Christian teaching. I'd say you'd probably have to get pretty
far into it to find such a contradiction, even if there is one.
Buddhism is not particularly evangelical, you know. It's
not out for converts in the same sense that some Christians are.
Also, SSR seemed to me to underline what it is that I think is
probably the case---namely, that you'll find precious little
Buddhism taught in these martial arts as they are taught in
the US. So, you seem to think there is such teaching, and
I remain doubtful. But, then again, I don't know who Grand Master Yi
is, what martial art he is master of, and whether he is the only
choice your son would have to learn that art from.
In short: You seem to think there is something there which
is a no-no, and I don't see any aspect of it that you have identified
which looks to me as posing any contradiction to Christianity
that I can see.
Pam:
So, though there is some truth in Buddhism, I don't want my son
latching onto incorrect spiritual ideas at an impressionable age, because I
believe that the whole truth can only be found in Christianity. Anything
else is not perfect truth. If the people perish for lack of knowledge, and
we are to be transformed through the renewing of our minds, then theology
and spiritual teachings are of the utmost importance.
Here we disagree. You sound to me like the Muslim in the story about
the burning of the Library of Alexandria---if the books are in agreement
with the Koran, then they are superfluous, if they contradict it, then
they are false---in either case, they are unnecessary.
Surely Christianity can not teach one mathematics, physics, biology,
literature, foreign languages, history, music, art, martial arts, true
anthropological knowledge of what other people worship and believe,
and so on and so forth. So I think you are utterly in error in saying
"the whole truth" can only be found in Christianity. You might be right
in saying that only one who is also a Christian can find the whole
truth. That is a different question, and I don't know its answer.
But, presumably there are truths out there in other subjects than
"Christianity", is my point. Which is not to say one's son needs to
become Buddhist or even buy into any incorrect spiritual ideas in
order to learn about martial arts that may be a cultural tradition
associated with Buddhists.
Anyway, I may be wrong about this. I am willing to be shown
how and why. But, my reading of you so far is that you think
"spirituality" in these martial arts is somehow anti-Christian
and thus it is to you *like* that temple on Okinawa was to
Kanga. I still think it is *not like* that temple on Okinawa,
that the cases are different, and that what "spirituality"
you'd find in a martial-arts program in the States is
probably completely consonant with at least some Christian
teaching.
Pam:
You've got an imperative that says freedom for the child to
make up his own mind is more important than any arbitrary
(to you) moral imperative you could impose on the child, right?
Not exactly, no. "Die gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten?"
I believe human minds are free, and therefore that one *cannot*
impose opinions. But I certainly don't think that moral
imperatives are arbitrary or are mere opinions. In the same
sense I don't think it is merely an opinion that if hold a
pencil above the floor it will fall down with an acceleration
of 9.8 m/s^2. So, it wouldn't be an imposition on a child to
assert that such acceleration is the truth. Nor would it be
an imposition on a child to insist that he ought to honor
the truth and to tell it.
Pam:
But I have "Train up a child in which way
he should go, and he will not depart from it
when he is old."
I am well aware of the verse. I even think it's a wise
proverb. However, I also notice lots and lots of people
in the world who describe themselves to me as having been
raised by Christian parents and in Christian churches, who
no longer agree with what it is they were taught, so
I also think if you take a verse like that too seriously,
then the observation of even one backslider would be enough to
prove that that sort of training was not in fact "the way he
should go".
Pam:
(Notice it doesn't say "when he's a teenager." ;o) )
I'm well aware that this verse suggests *good* training
will lead to no teen rebellion. I agree with that.
It merely remains to work out what that good training is.
Pam:
So, to try to ensure that my children grow up
to be Christians is consistent with my ethic of teaching
them the truth, and of preserving them from corruption.
I understand and respect that that is the case. I
question whether it works, but it is in my nature
to question whether anything works, and I bear in mind
that *you* are your child's parent.
Pam:
To you, it's not that important if your child
becomes a Buddhist, Christian,
or atheist, you seem to be saying(?)
It could be incredibly important. However, what is simply prior
is that they, as adult human beings, will choose that Buddhism, or that
Christianity, or that atheism for themselves. I cannot choose it
for them. And I certainly do not want to make them into little agreers
with myself. Disagreement and human difference is good. Argument
is good. Contradiction is good. It is our friend.
Pam:
Since you regard all religions to be
false,
Not at all. You can never get that from anything I have said.
Pam:
and therefore of no effect,
Nor that. They could be true, or they could be
false and to great effect at the same time.
Pam:
it is okay to allow the child to choose
their own beliefs,
No. If all religions were false, then it would
be to great and sad effect were I to allow them
to believe. It would mean I had failed to teach
them some salient fact and process of reason
by which they could prove rationally "all religions
are false".
Pam:
with no influence from you.
There are facts and processes of reason, and not only of
science and of human lore, but of ethics and aesthetics, too,
that I can certainly teach them. And all of that comes before
any adult evaluation of Christian doctrine they will have to
make and choose for themselves if they are going to be Christian.
Pam:
I can see that would be the
right thing to do if freedom were a higher
moral imperative than Christ.
Freedom isn't a moral imperative, it's the
human condition. It's one of those truth thingies
that come *before* one gets to Christian doctrine,
and with which any Christian doctrine would be
null and void as such did it not have human free will
in at the very start of it.
Pam:
Is it true you can't indoctrinate someone?
I believe you cannot indoctrinate people who have learned
for themselves truths. Their minds will know the
real meat and will be hungry for it, and will not
ever accept mere indoctrination to opinion as a
substitute for it.
Pam:
I can think of some
counterexamples to that idea.
The only examples I can think of are people
kept isolated from truth. And that is pretty hard to
do. I make it a basic tenet of my approach to homeschooling
my own that there will no or at least as few as I can make
isolations of my children from truth.
Pam:
I think people have different levels of
mental fortitude, and some are stronger-willed than others, but if you
expose most people to the same information / stimulus enough times over a
period of years, even if they don't like it at first, they will begin to
tolerate it, and then to gradually accept it. People aren't computers, so
it's not like a titration, or anything, but if you couldn't influence
people's minds, there would be no commercials.
I don't know, Pam. I've always loved Dr. Pepper commercials,
but I've never been able to stand the drink.
Pam:
So, I guess you are going to disagree with everything
I just said now?
Everything, no. But, I do think you have been jumping to
lots of conclusions about what I believe that simply
aren't the case. So, I took care to respond to them.
Pam:
Can we agree to disagree this time?
Seems to me if I post things which disagree with
what you have said, of course I am agreeing to
disagree with you.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Kanga Mum
> That was what I was responding to. Pam wrote:
> My son needs to do some kind of wrestling or martial
> arts. I won't launch into a long explanation of why,
> but I'm concerned about the spiritual aspect
> of martial arts, [...]
>
> I took her to mean "I won't launch into a long explanation
> of why I'm concerned about the spiritual aspect of
> martial arts, but I am concerned." Apparently she meant
> rather "I won't launch into a long explanation of
> why my son needs to do some kind of wrestling
> or martial arts, but I'm concerned about the spiritual
> aspect of martial arts." I plainly misread her.
Well, I read it the same way, and I do know lots of Christians who
would be concerned about the spiritual aspects of some martial arts
training, so it was a reasonable mistake.
I agree that there are aspects of this that matter to me and don't to
you, and I see no reason why they should matter to you. In fact, I
think that some of the things that don't matter to you also don't
matter to me- the idea of paying money to stick my finger down a hole
in the Holy Sepulchre in Jersalem to feel a rock would be about as
meaningful to me sticking a buck in one of those silly machines where
you turn the knob and get a plastic bubble containing a plastic ring,
though. I am not very relic oriented. Come to that, I don't like
crucifixes, either.
I don't object to visiting cathedrals or temples or mosques, and I
have, in fact, visited sites sacred to beliefs utterly foreign to my
own. I do draw the line at worshipping there, not because I think
that is an act fraught with spiritual peril (I think it is a
spiritually dangerous act, but that's not my first motivation in
avoiding it), but more immediately, because it would be similar to
french kissing some man other than my husband. Yuck.
While in Okinawa, we visited many places sacred to the Okinawans,
including this Buddha at the Okinawa Peace Park:
http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/karate/okinawa4.html
I took a couple of our Japanese exchange students there, and they went
up to the Buddha to pray, and folded paper cranes to add to some
there. I hung back from the Buddha, not wishing to bow as they did,
but I had no objection to just being there in the background. Had I
been asked to make a donation, however, I would have had to decline
(our church does not solicit donations from nonbelievers, either, and
we generally make it clear when passing the collection plate that this
is for believers not unbelievers).
The temple visit my daughter's class was making was described to the
parents something like this (I think now this was not altogether an
accurate description):
"Shichi-Go-San, or seven five three, day, is a day where the local
nationals thank the local deities for their special protection over
all children ages 7, 5, and 3. They thank the local gods by dressing
up these children, taking them to the shrine, paying a donation to the
local shrine, and eating special candy made there and only available
on that day..."
The only kids going on this field trip were the kindergarten classes
(ie, the five year olds), we were required to dress them up
(reasonable enough, as it would have been rude not to), and (and this
was really the clincher for me) it was required that we send a
donation for the children to give to the local shrine, and the kids
would be getting candy from the shrine.
>
> OK, my point: I don't recognize the same thing in "martial-arts'
> spirituality" as I do in that Okinawan temple. The "spirituality"
> of martial arts isn't worship, and certainly does not seem
> to me to be un-Christian, or even outside the ken of Christian
> experience. Leastways, that's what I would think from only
> limited personal acquaintance. So, I was wondering what Pam was
> afraid of with respect to this "spirituality" thing. Is it
> specifically some kind of teaching of doctrine that she thinks
> won't fit with her teaching of her son that is the concern? Is
> it "spirituality" in general?
http://www.pastornet.net.au/response/index.htm
I'm taking the lazy way out, here, as I haven't read much of anything
on this site, other than a supposed letter by a supposed practicing
Zen Buddhist agreeing that Christians shoudl avoid martial arts.
I'm not sure 'afraid' is the right term either. I'm thinking of your
response to what you read on the Bluedorn's site, where you voiced
disagreement with their approach and said something like, "We'll have
none of it here..."
I think it's probably similar, although I could be wrong, not being
Pam's alterego. But I think of the fact that I will not have pagan
idols in my house- we were given a Buddha or something while in Japan,
and we got rid of it right away. I'm not afraid of it. I don't
believe inanimate objects can be demon possessed, but I don't like it
or what it represents and I won't have it in my house.
I don't think Buddhism and Christianity are as compatible, spiritually
speaking, as you seem to think, and I object to the one and won't have
it in my house, because it's not compatible with the other.
In spite of which, I am reading and enjoying Zen and the ARt of
Motorcycle Maintenance, as well as Science and Human Values by Jacob
Bronowski, as per your recommendations.
Thanks for mentioning them- I had assumed there would not be anything
in Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance that I would care for,
not liking Zen or motorcycles, but I'm finding it a fascinating
read,and I'm sorry I didn't read it earlier.
Speaking of reads, I'v also recently purchased:
The Adventures of Penrose the Mathematical Cat, by Theoni Pappas
Elementary Algebra, by Harold R. Jacobs
Calculus by and for Young People-Worksheets by Donald Cohen
Fractals, Googols and Other Mathematical Tales by Theoni Pappas
Can you tell what I'm working on? I'd like to look at Murderous
Maths, but haven't seen a copy at the library and couldn't buy
anything else at Amazon.
From the library:
Number Patterns
The AGe of Mathematics
The Number Devil
Grandfather Tang's Story
Math Curse
200% of Nothing
among others, including a delightful surprise:
Two Peas in a POd- which we got as a counting book, and it turns out
to be a wonderfully warm and loving book on multiple births, which is
easily read as a warm and loving book about large families.
On the headboard:
poor Moby Dick
Brothers Karamazov
Quick and EAsy Math, by Asimov
Recently finished:
Eats, Shoots & Leaves
Parnassus on Wheels
In the Beginning, by Chaim Potok
The Rise of Silas Lapham
Daisy Miller
Another famous title by Henry James which is totally escaping me
right now, um it's coming, sort of-
the screw one- Turn of the Screw or Turning of the Screw.
Incident at Hawk's Hill
Democracy in America (listend to this one on tape)
Essays by Ralph Waldo Emerson
Wilde's Ideal Husband
The Outcasts of Poker Flat
Terry Pratchett's Reaper Man; Sourcery; Jingo
Pratchett is choppy and has more innuendoes than I like, but I am
enchanted by his characters, who say stuff like this:
"...if you trust in yourself..."
"Yes?"
"...and believe in your dreams..."
"Yes?"
"...and follow your star..."
"Yes?"
"...you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working
hard and learning things and weren't so lazy."
Kanga
Michael S. Morris
Friday, the 11th of June, 2004
I'd like to add an analogy which occurred to me,
and which I hope will explain the issue that I
have been taking.
Take Islam and its Five Pillars. There are five things
that are supposed to define who is a Muslim, five things that
each Muslim must do to be a Muslim.
They are:
1) The shahada, or profession of faith.
My memory is that this goes (in transliterated Arabic)
"La ilaha ila Allah, Muhammed rasul Allah."
"There is no God but God, and Muhammed is His prophet."
2) Prayer. Ritually five times a day. To God.
3) Fasting. During the month of Ramadan. No food
eaten (drink is permissible) between sunup and sundown.
4) Zakat. Almsgiving, I think one fiftieth of income
given in alms for the poor.
5) The hajj. The pilgrimage to Mecca once in one's
lifetime.
OK, concentrate on just two of these five "Pillars", the
shahada and zakat. Allah is just God, and in fact is the
same God "of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel" of the Bible. That
is, the central profession of faith of Islam is basicaly a
profession of monotheism, much like the Jewish shema ("Hear O
Israel, the Lord your God is one..."). However, obviously
there are differences of doctrine between Islam and
Christianity. In particular, the second clause
of the shahada is that Mohammed is God's prophet, and that would
imply lots of stuff---that is, the truth of various teachings
of Mohammed that may well be at odds with much Christian doctrine.
So, objection by a Christian to the shahada makes perfect sense
to me. It contains a part that is perfectly in agreement with
Christian teaching, but it also contains a part that goes way
beyond, and quite possibly in detail into contradiction with
Christian teaching [Muslims believe for example that
"the people of the Book"---Jews and Christians---were
vouchsafed true revelations from true prophets of God,
Jesus being one of them, but both religions got it wrong
by either focusing too much on silly ritual (Jews)
or by multiplying the number of gods from one to three
(Christians)].
On the other hand, zakat seems a perfectly fine thing
in its own right. I have read that Muslim almsgiving
in fact way outdoes Christian generosity in
practice, and, well, to a Christian, there seems to
be something to learn here from Muslim practice. Also,
the point is that there *is* a longstanding Christian
tradition of almsgiving, and almsgiving is perfectly
consonant with, well, Jesus's great commandment to
love one's neighbour as one's self. So, Pam, it
reads to me like we have this thing, call it "Muslim
almsgiving", and you are saying to me "I don't want
any part of that false Muslim doctrine". And I am saying
it's not doctrine, it's just almsgiving, which is
perfectly Christian already in its own right,
the Muslims don't own almsgiving after all, there is a fine
Christian tradition of it, too, and, well, what's
bad about almsgiving?
That is, there is a fine tradition of "Christian warrior
spirituality" (think of the squire spending an all-night
vigil in devotion and prayer before he is to be knighted
and the whole idea of sublimation of one's martial powers
and adventures into a kind of spiritual quest). There is
another tradition of, say, "Buddhist warrior spirituality".
OK, so my point is these both look to me like "warrior
spirituality"---i.e. more like the same thing than a real
difference. When you say there are teachings about Ki
in some book by a Buddhist martial arts master,
that reads to me much like saying there are teachings about
zakat in some book by a Muslim imam. Zakat still just looks
like almsgiving to me. I don't see that there is necessarily
anything in it as almsgiving which is un-Christian.
I should say I approach this topic, Pam, not so much
from an "I like Buddhism" perspective, but more
from being a physicist who bristles at all of these
"Eastern mysticism woo-woo [insert sound effects]" pop-science
takes on physics (for example, the books _The Tao of Physics_
or _The Dancing Wu-Li Masters_), as though this Eastern
mysticism stuff were all that strange or different
from ideas perfectly well found within the West, and
within Christianity in particular. It seems to me Westerners
tend to get much too woozy whenever Eastern mysticism
in any form comes up. It always seems to me to be treated
as more strange than it really is. Is there anything
identifiable as particularly un-Christian about this
"Buddhist warrior spirituality"? is my question.
It's kind of a rhetorical question, Pam, because I'm
not necessarily expecting you to have an answer, or
to even have thought about it much, though I would
happy to listen if you or if anyone has any case
to make about why warrior spiritualities might
be distinct.
Mike Morris
Kanga Mum
>[ ]> OK, concentrate on just two of these five "Pillars", the
> shahada and zakat. Allah is just God, and in fact is the
> same God "of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel" of the Bible.
No, Allah is not the God of the Bible.
[ ]>
> On the other hand, zakat seems a perfectly fine thing
> in its own right. I have read that Muslim almsgiving
> in fact way outdoes Christian generosity in
> practice, and, well, to a Christian, there seems to
> be something to learn here from Muslim practice.
I suppose it could, but most Christians I know tithe ten percent. We
just don't talk about it much, because most giving is secret.
OTOH, some Christians understand tithing to be an Old Testament Law,
and the NT version is 'give as it has been given unto you...." which I
interpret as a kind of a sacred sliding scale. At any rate, it's
never seemed to me that God lowered the bar when He raised the gift.
Also,
> the point is that there *is* a longstanding Christian
> tradition of almsgiving, and almsgiving is perfectly
> consonant with, well, Jesus's great commandment to
> love one's neighbour as one's self. So, Pam, it
> reads to me like we have this thing, call it "Muslim
> almsgiving", and you are saying to me "I don't want
> any part of that false Muslim doctrine". And I am saying
> it's not doctrine, it's just almsgiving, which is
> perfectly Christian already in its own right,
> the Muslims don't own almsgiving after all, there is a fine
> Christian tradition of it, too, and, well, what's
> bad about almsgiving?
>
> That is, there is a fine tradition of "Christian warrior
> spirituality" (think of the squire spending an all-night
> vigil in devotion and prayer before he is to be knighted
> and the whole idea of sublimation of one's martial powers
> and adventures into a kind of spiritual quest). There is
> another tradition of, say, "Buddhist warrior spirituality".
> OK, so my point is these both look to me like "warrior
> spirituality"---i.e. more like the same thing than a real
> difference.
But since you think Allah is just the same as God, I don't think we're
looking at the same thing.
Different power source and different views of the self, for one thing.
Kanga
Michael S. Morris
Friday, the 12th of June, 2004
I wrote:
OK, concentrate on just two of these five "Pillars", the
shahada and zakat. Allah is just God, and in fact is the
same God "of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel" of the Bible.
Kanga:
No, Allah is not the God of the Bible.
I emphatically disagree with you, Kanga. I am well
aware that with Islam there are many doctrinal differences
about this God which might be argued make Him an entirely
different God. The problem is, *the second you step on
that path* is the same second you argue the God the Jews
believe in is not the same God, and, moreover, the God millions
upon millions of Christians believe in is not the same God,
because they believe differently about Him than you do.
For that matter, C.S. Lewis, say, writes a book about
God and you then are going to have a fundamental
problem saying even that the God Lewis is writing about
is the same as the God of the Bible. If Lewis
in fact writes one word of explanation or tries one tittle of
recasting biblical language or teaching into his own language
or by way of writing an example, the God he'll get will be
arguably as different as the Muslim God is, even though he
obviously claims to be writing about the God of the Bible.
Ditto for any preacherly interpretation of
the Bible whatsoever, if said interpretation goes beyond
quoting the Bible by one word. I do not buy the assertion
that someone who takes the God of the Bible and gets
Him wrong is necessarily talking about a different God.
The point is the Koran says Allah is the God of Abraham
and Isaac. The Bible itself is referred to in the Koran
as "the Book", and it is assumed as simply true.
"The People of the Book" (namely Christians and Jews)
are certainly *not* assumed true or trustworthy,
but, to Muslims, that isn't God's fault.
Allah is the God of the Bible in the sense that He
is not the Hindu Ganesh or the Greek Phoebus Apollo
or the Roman Quirinus or a Native American's Great
Manitou or an Aztec's Huitzilipochtli. What I will
grant you is certainly that Islam is distinct from
Christianity, but the difference is not in that they
worship different gods, it is rather that they
hold different doctrines (teachings) about the same
God. Ditto for Mormons, by the way, who also clearly
worship the God of the Bible, with some doctrinal
interpretations thereof that are going to be different
than yours.
I wrote:
On the other hand, zakat seems a perfectly fine thing
in its own right. I have read that Muslim almsgiving
in fact way outdoes Christian generosity in
practice, and, well, to a Christian, there seems to
be something to learn here from Muslim practice.
Kanga:
I suppose it could, but most Christians I know
tithe ten percent.
Umm, in the first place, I do not think that most
Christians do tithe ten percent. I can well believe
that most that you know do, but I am certain the numbers
on average among Christian church members are far, far
short of ten percent. I've had ministers tell me this
is simply the case.
In the second place, tithing to give to one's church
is *not the same thing as almsgiving*, though I well
understand that some of church income does get distributed
in the form of alms to the poor.
Kanga:
We just don't talk about it much, because most giving is secret.
OTOH, some Christians understand tithing to be an Old Testament Law,
and the NT version is 'give as it has been given unto you...." which I
interpret as a kind of a sacred sliding scale. At any rate, it's
never seemed to me that God lowered the bar when He raised the gift.
It's not really about asking Christians to talk about it, it's
more an issue of what percentage of people's incomes are
given in alms to the poor among Christians versus this number
among Muslims. I have read in several places the claim that
Muslims do better on average than do Christians.
I said:
Also, the point is that there *is* a longstanding Christian
tradition of almsgiving, and almsgiving is perfectly
consonant with, well, Jesus's great commandment to
love one's neighbour as one's self. So, Pam, it
reads to me like we have this thing, call it "Muslim
almsgiving", and you are saying to me "I don't want
any part of that false Muslim doctrine". And I am saying
it's not doctrine, it's just almsgiving, which is
perfectly Christian already in its own right,
the Muslims don't own almsgiving after all, there is a fine
Christian tradition of it, too, and, well, what's
bad about almsgiving?
That is, there is a fine tradition of "Christian warrior
spirituality" (think of the squire spending an all-night
vigil in devotion and prayer before he is to be knighted
and the whole idea of sublimation of one's martial powers
and adventures into a kind of spiritual quest). There is
another tradition of, say, "Buddhist warrior spirituality".
OK, so my point is these both look to me like "warrior
spirituality"---i.e. more like the same thing than a real
difference.
Kanga:
But since you think Allah is just the same as God, I don't think we're
looking at the same thing.
Kanga, you are saying because I think Allah is "just the same as God"
(not exactly what I said), you don't think in the case of
"Buddhist/Christian warrior spirituality" we are looking at
the same thing? I can't make much sense of that "since", I confess.
In any event, I'm not convinced that my point were altered one jot if
I were to have simply said the shahada contains in its first
clause a profession of faith in a false god, since I was
granting in any event that the second half of the shahada
is necessarily in conflict with Christian belief. So, it
strikes me my argument becomes even stronger if I had simply said
Allah is really Ganesh (the Hindu elephant-headed god) in
disguise (even though the Koran makes perfectly clear Allah
is the God of Abraham). I still think alms are alms and as
consonant with Christianity whether you call them alms or
zakat. And I still think there is very little of real difference
in "warrior spiritualities". East or West, the whole idea is
always going to be "let go your conscious self: Use the
Force Luke!". What they don't tell you is, you
can't let go the conscious self until after you've struggled
by means of the conscious self for years and years (at least
those of us who are not naturals at anything) to obtain
the mastery of body that permits you to go beyond and through
to the other side of conscious self.
I said:
Kanga:
Different power source and different views of
the self, for one thing.
In what ways precisely different? See, it seems to
me that Christian spirituality is simply a vast thing,
and multiplied in many different forms throughout history
in many different Christian sects. So, I bet
that I can probably thumb through my library and
dig up examples of Christian self-abnegation,
Christian ascetism, Christian mystic exaltation,
and certainly Christian anti-materialism and
anti-rationalism, various kinds of Christian
devotion, whatever. So, what I would like to do
is see some exampled "Buddhist warrior spirituality"
such as an American kid might encounter in
a course of a martial-arts program (I mean, honestly,
do you imagine they have to convert American kids to
a bedrock belief in the whole Hindu mythology of
polytheism and humans cycling fated by their karma
debt to cycles of reincarnation, in order then to
sell them on Buddhism as the path of salvation
from the curse of endless rebirth, and all that
in order to teach them karate?) and to then see
whether I can not match that spirituality to
examples of Christians professing the same thing.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Pants DaiLyon
> Pam:
> > ...if you couldn't influence people's
> > minds, there would be no commercials.
>
>
> I don't know, Pam. I've always loved Dr. Pepper commercials,
> but I've never been able to stand the drink.
Mr. Pibb is kinda like Dr. Pepper. It just tastes better, and they
have no commercials. Since it *is* better, the only reason I can see
that it's not more popular than Dr. Pepper is that Dr. Pepper
advertises.
Ray Drouillard
"Pants DaiLyon" <pantsd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:965205ef.04061...@posting.google.com...
Sorta like Pepsi and Coke. Pepsi tastes better, but Coke advertises
more effectively.
Ray Drouillard
<running away quickly>
Vic Kulikauskas
> "Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote in message
> news:<40CA042F...@netdirect.net>...
>>[ ]> OK, concentrate on just two of these five "Pillars", the
>> shahada and zakat. Allah is just God, and in fact is the
>> same God "of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel" of the Bible.
>
> No, Allah is not the God of the Bible.
[...]
> But since you think Allah is just the same as God, I don't think we're
> looking at the same thing.
[...]
Leaving aside the Muslim / Christian aspect of it (which is your
point, yes, I know), Allah *IS* exactly the same as God.
"Allah" is the Arabic word that means "God". That's the word that
Arabic-speaking Christians use to refer to God.
It may be valid to say "no, your Muslim idea of God is not the
same as the God of the Bible", and I think that's what you meant,
but saying that Allah is not the same as God is like saying that
Spanish-speaking people are pagans because they worship Dios
instead of God.
Pam Crouch
news:40cb2109....@mmalt.guild.org...
I would just like to point out that Allah has no sons. That's well-known to
muslims. As such, there is a difference between Allah and the Christian
YHWH. If muslims worship the one true God, then the issue of Jesus as God's
son has to be addressed. Muslims have it writ large on walls: "GOD HAS NO
SONS."
--Pam :o)
Michael S. Morris
Saturday, the 12th of June, 2004
Pam wrote:
I would just like to point out that Allah has no sons. That's well-known to
muslims. As such, there is a difference between Allah and the Christian
YHWH. If muslims worship the one true God, then the issue of Jesus as God's
son has to be addressed. Muslims have it writ large on walls: "GOD HAS NO
SONS."
And I would just like to re-point out that Allah means "God" in
Arabic, and so, to Arabic speakers who happen to be Christian
Allah certainly has one only begotten son, namely Jesus.
In any event, sure, in Islam Allah has no sons. But, in Judaism,
Jesus is not God's only begotten son either. In Judaism, if you
speak of God the Father, then this is a *metaphorical* way of
speaking about Him. Which means the gospels themselves are wide
open to an interpretation that when Jesus, who after all
was a Jewish teacher, spoke of the Father, he was speaking
metaphorically.
Anyway, certainly the Islamic beliefs about Allah are not
consonant with Christian teachings about the Christian *God*
(well, actually, I'd say Islam and Christianity are big places,
with many sects and traditions of theology, and I certainly
could not say confidently that there are no parts of Islamic theology
and doctrine about God that correspond exactly to parts of Christian
theology). But anyway no one claimed that Muslims are
Christians. Christianity appropriated the Jewish God,
and added some story line (the New Testament) and added
some interpretation (which includes in part the doctrine
that the Jews misinterpret their own scriptures). In much the same way,
Islam appropriated the Jewish plus Christian God and added more
story line (the Koran) and more interpretation (which includes
in part that both the Jews and the Christians have misinterpreted
their respective scriptures). I have no doubt that you believe
Christians got it right and the Jews and the Muslims got it
wrong. But, the differences are quarrels about the biography of
this one God.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Stainless Steel Streetrat
<jaso...@nospammingswbell.net> writes:
>
>I would just like to point out that Allah has no sons. That's well-known to
>muslims. As such, there is a difference between Allah and the Christian
>YHWH. If muslims worship the one true God, then the issue of Jesus as God's
>son has to be addressed. Muslims have it writ large on walls: "GOD HAS NO
>SONS."
>
>--Pam :o)
>
Yep. The book _I Dared to Call Him Father_, is the story of one ex-Muslim's
very struggle with *exactly* this issue <wg>.
Pants DaiLyon
> I would just like to point out that Allah has no sons. That's well-known to
> muslims. As such, there is a difference between Allah and the Christian
> YHWH. If muslims worship the one true God, then the issue of Jesus as God's
> son has to be addressed. Muslims have it writ large on walls: "GOD HAS NO
> SONS."
But he has two daughters... No, wait... that was when Muhammad was
being inspired by Satan rather than Allah, so disregard that part of
the Q'uran, those are the Satanic Verses.
Michael S. Morris
Sunday, the 13th of June, 2004
I said:
That was what I was responding to. Pam wrote:
My son needs to do some kind of wrestling or martial
arts. I won't launch into a long explanation of why,
but I'm concerned about the spiritual aspect
of martial arts, [...]
I took her to mean "I won't launch into a long explanation
of why I'm concerned about the spiritual aspect of
martial arts, but I am concerned." Apparently she meant
rather "I won't launch into a long explanation of
why my son needs to do some kind of wrestling
or martial arts, but I'm concerned about the spiritual
aspect of martial arts." I plainly misread her.
Kanga:
Well, I read it the same way, and I do know lots of
Christians who would be concerned about the spiritual
aspects of some martial arts training, so it was a
reasonable mistake.
Yep. I went and read three articles on the site you
linked to. It's funny: There seems to be strong disagreement
about whether these martial arts necessarily ought to entrain
Eastern religious beliefs or whether they ought not. And
one gets this from both sides (umm, I mean the article by
the Taoist who thinks martial arts are necessarily Eastern,
and that Christians who imagine they can appropriate the art
without the non-Christian religious aspects are, well, wrong).
I don't know---I'm a Westerner and darned skeptical about
mysticisms of any kind. So, I tend to believe that *of course*
one could acquire the art and be unswervingly Southern Baptist
or whatever---that is, *of course* there is no witchcraft or
magic in it, it's all just discipline and physics.
I wrote:
Kanga:
I agree that there are aspects of this that matter to me and don't to
you, and I see no reason why they should matter to you.
And I understand reasons why they should matter to you.
Kanga:
In fact, I think that some of the things that don't matter to you also don't
matter to me- the idea of paying money to stick my finger down a hole
in the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem to feel a rock would be about as
meaningful to me sticking a buck in one of those silly machines where
you turn the knob and get a plastic bubble containing a plastic ring,
though. I am not very relic oriented.
Yep. I figured approximately that. Which is kind of why I wrote
the description I did. I think the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is
a hoot. It's like 4 churches in one---there's an apse in each of
its 4 corners, each with and altar and all the usual paraphernalia.
I don't remember exactly the denominations, but one is Catholic,
certainly, and there's a Greek Orthodox one, there may be a
Protestant corner, I don't recall. As far as I could tell there
are various faithful there praying continuously in each corner,
and various services, incense wavings, and the like going on in
some pattern I can't guess. And then of course all these tourists
coming in with tour guides and cameras. Think very busy.
I'm a little uncomfortable with that, by the way. In the sense
that one visits, say, the Church of Saint-Peter-in-Chains (San Pietro
in Vincolo?) in Rome. One does this for only one reason: Michaelangelo's
"Moses" is there. You crowd in and the statue is in the dark, and
someone sticks the proper coins in this 30-second light, and it
lights up the sculpture and lots of camera flashes go off, and maybe
the crowd moves around a bit, and you get a better view, and the light
timer goes out until someone else coughs up some more coins for it.
OK, so I think there's also so steps where you can walk down and view
the very spot where Peter was kept in Roman prison before his
execution (which, I'm sure you're aware, most of these "very spots"
come on the authority of ecstatic visions of this or that royal believer
centuries after the events that are supposed to have taken place there).
The uncomfortabe bit is that this tourist mob scene is all taking
place in a parish church where there might also be 20 or 30 parishioners
sitting in the pews and telling rosaries or even participating in some
small service with a priest speaking to them.
Kanga:
Come to that, I don't like crucifixes, either.
But crucifixes versus crosses is one of those Catholics
versus Protestants things, and to my way of looking
(umm, equally sympathetic, equally unsympathetic
to both Catholicism and Protestantism), the one just seems
to emphasize the humanity of Christ, and the other
His divinity.
I do think both crosses and crucifixes as symbols depend on
who is doing the interpreting and when. There's a quote
from George Bernard Shaw about not wanting there to be
a cross---a symbol of torture---on his grave. I've always
threatened that were some sort of program of censorship ever imposed
based on the idea that people have a right to walk around
being unoffended by things they might see or read in public,
that, in that case, the first things I would insist
offend me and therefore would need to be removed are
the symbols of torture on churches. Of course, this more
of a pose (or a pose planned as a just-in-case) than anything
else, but, what the heck.
Kanga:
I don't object to visiting cathedrals or temples or mosques, and I
have, in fact, visited sites sacred to beliefs utterly foreign to my
own. I do draw the line at worshipping there, not because I think
that is an act fraught with spiritual peril (I think it is a
spiritually dangerous act, but that's not my first motivation in
avoiding it), but more immediately, because it would be similar to
french kissing some man other than my husband. Yuck.
It's an interesting and vivid analogy. Thank you. Although, I
confess I'm not entirely sympathetic. I guess, I understand your
earlier comments about churches not being holy---the buildings
themselves. But, I'm wondering where exactly the line gets drawn
and maybe what you mean by worship. That is, I understand you worship
in your own church. But, you also occasionally travel, or have moved,
being married to a military guy, and must have spent some while
trying out a new church before becoming a member.
The thing that I am picking up on here is "cathedral" and the idea
that worshipping in a cathedral would be like worshipping in a
mosque. I.e. there's anti-Catholicism there that I wonder at.
I wonder because my mother was Catholic (estranged because she
married a divirced man), and my father was Disciples of Christ
(estranged because he was the one out seven children who
simply had no particular use for religion once he became an
adult). My sense is that, when they met (1957 I think), my
father was of the general belief and opinion (which I'm sure
must've come from his quite religious mother) that Catholics
eat babies for breakfast. So, there was this huge ignorance
and, well, anti-Catholic prejudice that needed to be overcome
at the time. So, I guess my questions for you would be along
the lines of: Would you worship in any Protestant church? Would
you distinguish between being a guest with some family/friends
and attending their church's service as a guest and actually worshipping
God in their church? Does it matter if some component of their
church/service contains false doctrine?
I mean, I could imagine your answer could be, "I'll only
attend church services in my denomination, sing the hymns I
already know and approve of, repeat confessions of faith that
I have already read and agreed with." I could imagine equally,
"I'm pretty liberal about tolerating divergent forms of worship
at least when someone's guest, though Catholic services, say,
are pretty distant in format, and there is enough there that is
objectionable to me that I will not participate." I could also
imagine, in a sort of radical Protestant mode, "Ultimately I
am my own priest, and I can worship God in a mosque, a temple,
cathedral, whatever, if I find myself there as someone's guest
(as opposed to being tourist and looking at the art), using what
I find in their service that fits and simply avoid participating in
what is not right."
Kanga:
While in Okinawa, we visited many places sacred to the Okinawans,
including this Buddha at the Okinawa Peace Park:
http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/karate/okinawa4.html
I took a couple of our Japanese exchange students there, and they went
up to the Buddha to pray, and folded paper cranes to add to some
there. I hung back from the Buddha, not wishing to bow as they did,
but I had no objection to just being there in the background.
Buddhism is weird, or at least complex. Probably no different than
Christianity in that respect---vast religion, vast history,
encompassing many different, and sometimes conflicting, doctrines.
The Buddhist scriptures---the Dhammapada, for example---seem to
me quite simple and well, the life of the Buddha, seems to me
a compelling and beautiful story. But, at that level, it is a
little like Jesus. Up close and personal is one thing, but
as soon as you get 400 years later and into the middle of
St. Augustine's _The Trinity_, one finds the doctrine has gotten
very complicated and difficult and nitpicking indeed. Sort of
far removed from the original conception. One of the more accessible
tellings of the Buddha story is Sir Edwin Arnold's epic poem
"The Light of Asia". I read this many years ago, but it emphasizes
I guess the elements of the story which make it like the Christ
story, apparently to the consternation of some Christians as well
as to the consternation of some Buddhists. Here is a link about Edwin
Arnold:
<http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/jsp/db/biography.jsp?authorId=611&authorName=Sir+Edwin+Arnold>
And Project Gutenberg has the text of "Light of Asia":
<http://www.knowledgerush.com/pg/etext05/lasia10.txt>
You might do better with the paginated version linking from the
first site. Anyway, Arnold also wrote a companion poem titled
"Light of the World" about Jesus. I don't know where one can
find it.
Buddhism originated in India. To me, the parallels with Christianity
at its point of origin are striking. That is, it began inside the
hindu system, which was a system of belief with many gods, and in which
the sould is assumed to be recycled endlessly through reincarnation.
In fact, this seems to me to be the basic East/West religious
distinction, how they handle the question of death. In the West,
the religious response is Life after Death. In the East, the religious
response is reincarnation. In the West, this Life after Death thing can
be better or worse, heaven or hell. In the East, it can be better or
worse in that one can be reincarnated up or down the chain of being.
In the West, Judaism provides the basic paradigm of this religious
belief. One God. And a system of law (and ritulaized worship)
which determines how well one does in the afterlife. In the
East, Hinduism is the basic paradigm---multiple gods and a system
of law and ritulaized worship which determines how well one does
in reincarnation. In the West, I think it is a knife-edge thing,
but there is a basic belief in the West that life is a blessing.
In the East, it is more a basic belief that life is a curse. Okay,
enter a Savior in both systems. Jesus offers a way to cut through
all of the stultifying law and ritual of Judaism with a simplicity of
belief that leads to a heavenly afterlife. Buddha offers a way
to step out of the curse of rebirth, and to avoid the extreme
of asceticism and stultifying law and ritual that Hindu
belief had become. Oh, by the way, I say "Jesus" and "Buddha",
but of course it's more like Christ is to Jesus as Buddha is
to Siddhartha. Siddhartha was his name and Buddha is just an appelation
signifying that he achieved this salvation. Both births of
Jesus and Siddhartha were semi-divine in the stories.
Jesus was born poor, Siddhartha a great prince. Siddhartha
is married and has a son I think and is kept by his earthly
father in a pleasure palace because of a prophecy Siddhartha
will be king of the world unless he sees death, disease, famine,
and poverty, in which case he will become savior of the world.
And of course, there's a point where he is a young man and goes
out of the palace and looks on these things, and is so moved
by the suffering he sees that he rejects worldly kingship
and begins the quest for Enlightenment. After plumbing the
depths of Hindu asceticism (of out-Hindu-ing Hindus)
he decides this is getting us nowhere and then spends his night
wrestling with the Devil under the tree, and wins and goes out
into the world to teach the Way that he found, which is a way
of lovingkindness to one's fellow beings at the same time
as dissociation from the physical world (the fatness of the statues
is supposed to signify that you don't have to become an ascetic
to find Enlightenment). It's a story that is about 500 years prior
to Christ, though, because of that and because of the paucity
of historical records of the time, it has much more of the character
of legend or fairy-tale about it.
Also, what happened historically is divergent in the West and the
East. Umm, that is, Judaism stayed with the Jews, and Christianity
expanded to capture the nations. Hinduism had this ability to absorb
whatever new religious ideas came into it, so Buddhism flourished
for a time, there were even Buddhist missionaries under Ashoka,
once he was converted to it. But, it more or less died out in India
and instead spread and took root in China, southeast Asia, and Japan.
It's just that, in it's initial story-level, Buddha isn't someone to
worship. You don't pray to him as a god. It's more like he was a
great moral and spiritual teacher who fathomed the truth about things
and taught how to live. So, I frankly end up puzzled by things
like Buddhist temples and what exactly it means to the people who
bow there or who light incense there. I've visited Buddhist, Taoist,
and Confucian temples in Taiwan, and I confess to my eyes they
all look muchly the same. Different statues. So, I don't
fully understand the distinctions between them, or whether
the faithful there care about these distinctions. It seems clear
to me that layers of doctrine have been added, and the whole thing has
gotten transformed from its original conception (not unlike
Christianity, if you look at it in its various manifestations).
Why am I digressing on this? I don't know---I sure as heck don't
believe in reincarnation or that I need to be saved from the
endless suffering of having to be re-born into this world all
of the time. And I would think that most Americans---Christian
or otherwise---simply wouldn't connect in any way with that basic
premise. So, other than my sense that Buddha, if he even existed,
is a hero, and a good guy, and a great moral teacher (an example
teacher of what C.S. Lewis calls "the Tao" in _Abolition of Man_)
I don't see that there is much danger in an American pop setting
(such as martial-arts schools) of kids getting very far into this.
The premises seem so alien, I guess.
Kanga:
Had I been asked to make a donation, however, I would
have had to decline (our church does not solicit donations
from nonbelievers, either, and we generally make it clear
when passing the collection plate that this is for believers
not unbelievers).
This is maybe a contrast, but my sense is that if I were a
guest in a church at a worship service, I would be *wrong*
not to contribute to the collection plate. The minister
has a salary to be paid, there's a light bill for the
church, and so on and so forth. I may not agree with what
was said, but usually I'm sure it was meant well. I wouldn't
interpret my contribution as worship itself or as agreement
with the worship that went on there.
Kanga:
The temple visit my daughter's class was making was described to the
parents something like this (I think now this was not altogether an
accurate description):
"Shichi-Go-San, or seven five three, day, is a day where the local
nationals thank the local deities for their special protection over
all children ages 7, 5, and 3. They thank the local gods by dressing
up these children, taking them to the shrine, paying a donation to the
local shrine, and eating special candy made there and only available
on that day..."
The only kids going on this field trip were the kindergarten classes
(ie, the five year olds), we were required to dress them up
(reasonable enough, as it would have been rude not to), and (and this
was really the clincher for me) it was required that we send a
donation for the children to give to the local shrine, and the kids
would be getting candy from the shrine.
Even I would have problems with it, given all you say. I mean,
it's like baptizing an infant or something---it offends my sense
of respect for human free will and the idea that acts of worship
need to come from a well-informed adult mind that has chosen
those acts. Consent is missing. And with what you say, it isn't
watching some local ceremony, it's consenting to worship.
I said:
OK, my point: I don't recognize the same thing in "martial-arts'
spirituality" as I do in that Okinawan temple. The "spirituality"
of martial arts isn't worship, and certainly does not seem
to me to be un-Christian, or even outside the ken of Christian
experience. Leastways, that's what I would think from only
limited personal acquaintance. So, I was wondering what Pam was
afraid of with respect to this "spirituality" thing. Is it
specifically some kind of teaching of doctrine that she thinks
won't fit with her teaching of her son that is the concern? Is
it "spirituality" in general?
Kanga:
http://www.pastornet.net.au/response/index.htm
I'm taking the lazy way out, here, as I haven't read much of anything
on this site, other than a supposed letter by a supposed practicing
Zen Buddhist agreeing that Christians should avoid martial arts.
I read three of them. Two in favour of martial arts, one by a
Christian martial artist, one sort of reviewing spiritualisms
in different martial arts and advising caution but not a total
ban, and one by a Taoist who says the Taoism is important to
the art and, hence, Christians can't and shouldn't do this stuff.
I reiterate I'm pretty skeptical about the latter position.
I think it's a little like a black person saying jazz is
black music and therefore shouldn't be appropriated by whites.
Or me complaining about Christians taking a perfectly fine
pagan and revolutonary anthem in Beethoven's setting of
Schiller's "An der Freude" and ruining it by turning it
into a hymn "Joyful, Joyful". It's a jealousy thing.
I found disagreement about whether much spirtualism is
taught or no. And my guess is this probably depends on
whether we are talking seven-year-olds in a karate class
at the Y or a 20-year-program of self-discipline,
culminating in pilgrimage to martial-arts masters in
the orient. I kind of doubt there's much in the way
of the religious in the karate class taught for 7-year-olds
at the Y. Come to think of it, when I was 7-year-old
and did a judo class at the local Y, there was nothing
like that.
Kanga:
I'm not sure 'afraid' is the right term either.
Sure, but I don't think the expression is limited to
implying she is in fear or terror of something happening,
and hence was some sort of dare or implication that it
is only out of personal cowardice one wouldn't do that.
I think the expression had a gentler meaning.
Kanga:
I'm thinking of your
response to what you read on the Bluedorn's site, where you voiced
disagreement with their approach and said something like, "We'll have
none of it here..."
Maybe I'm not understanding you here, but, what I see is that I
would have none of the Bluedorn's isolation of their children from,
say, sex in books, especially given what I thought was the prudish
extent to which they seemed to me to carry that. I'd recommend
and even assign to them books that I figure they could handle,
and there are books at any given age I figure they can't yet handle,
and so there are books I would not recommend to them or assign to them,
but I wouldn't forbid them such books if they really wanted to try
them. (Zan at 14 is too young for _Ulysses_, although that doesn't
have to do with what sexual content it has, more that he'd be bored
by it. Zan at 14 is too young for _The Story of O_, and that probably
*does* have to do with its sexual content. Zan at 14 I judged was *not*
too young for _The Arabian Nights_ which he read unexpurgated
this last school year. _Ulysses_ and _The Story of O_ both sit on
the shelves where my son could perfectly well get them and read them
if he wants. I would not object.)
That is, you seem to be implying that my "we'll have none of
that here" is analogous to Pam's "we'll have none of that here",
where my "that" is the Bluedorn's expurgation of sex from their
children's reading and Pam's "that" would be Eastern spirituality.
Of course, I object that not tolerating intolerance isn't
really intolerance itself. (Which is not to say I think Pam is
being intolerant, but is to say I think the passage about
_Tarzan_ on the Bluedorn's site was pretty darn prudish.)
Kanga:
I think it's probably similar, although I could be wrong, not being
Pam's alterego. But I think of the fact that I will not have pagan
idols in my house- we were given a Buddha or something while in Japan,
and we got rid of it right away. I'm not afraid of it. I don't
believe inanimate objects can be demon possessed, but I don't like it
or what it represents and I won't have it in my house.
I don't think Buddhism and Christianity are as compatible, spiritually
speaking, as you seem to think, and I object to the one and won't have
it in my house, because it's not compatible with the other.
Whereas, I treasure a mezuzah we keep nailed to the
doorpost. It was on the doorpost of the first apartment
Martha and I shared, where it was left by the previous Jewish
tenant. When the landlord went to paint the house and
was going throw it away, I asked to have it. I also
have a Koran in Arabic (I mean that I can't read) that
I bought in a Cairo souk, and a rosary made of olive wood
beads from Vatican City, and an reproduction icon from Greece
of St. George slaying the dragon. (Well, not to mention
a pair of lacquered Chinese lions and a bust of Thomas Jefferson
and a reproduction Cycladic votive head, all of which I
consider very cool.)
Kanga:
In spite of which, I am reading and enjoying Zen and the ARt of
Motorcycle Maintenance, as well as Science and Human Values by Jacob
Bronowski, as per your recommendations.
Thanks for mentioning them- I had assumed there would not be anything
in Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance that I would care for,
not liking Zen or motorcycles, but I'm finding it a fascinating
read,and I'm sorry I didn't read it earlier.
I don't remember when I gave you the Pirsig recommendation,
but I like that book. I read it as an assigned book in
my freshman Honors Composition course at Purdue where Prof.
Charles Ross assigned it in 1978. It was just a beautifully written
book about I think (he says after all these years) the
Aristotelian/Platonic divide in western philosophy, as
explored in retrospect through this former philosophy student
who goes back through the history of his own mental and
spiritual collapse. My sense is, it's very little "about"
Zen really. I recall approaching it also with very little
interest in Zen, and also very little interest in motorcycles. Umm,
but I think what I appreciated finally was the three cheers
for the common sense of Aristotle in opposition to the
romantic flights of Plato. I.e., that there is something
to be said for craftsmanship and _techne_ and maintaining one's
motorcycles and gardens and doing one's dishes I suppose
in such a way that one works one's job right and well
in the mundane sphere of common duties, and not sloppily
because one always hopes to be taken away from it all.
There is another little book I read in graduate school
recommended by a friend titled _Zen and the Art of Archery_
by Eugen Herrigl. And that *is* about Zen. It's autobiographical
about this German engineer who travels to Japan in order
to learn Zen, and chooses archery as a vehicle for that
(the kind of thing where the Master drills the bullseye
from an impossible distance while blindfolded and teaches
enigmatic stuff like "Be one with the arrow and the target.
Do not exist, for there is no arrow and there is no target.").
I'm sure this book is long since out of print.
[Snip] because I need to get showered and on the
road to a choir gig. But, did you like _Eats, Shoots and Leaves_?
Everyone here read that in the last month or so, and
enjoyed it muchly. It's one of those "There will always
be an England" books, I think. The one one I wanted to
quarrel with her on was "Two Weeks Notice" since
I think her analogy that it should be "Two Weeks'
Notice" because you'd write "One Week's Notice"
might just as well have been to "One Week Notice".
And that's the one she says she stood outside a
movie queue and held up a placard with the apostrophe to the
marquee?
You say:
Pratchett is choppy and has more innuendoes than I like, but I am
enchanted by his characters, who say stuff like this:
"...if you trust in yourself..."
"Yes?"
"...and believe in your dreams..."
"Yes?"
"...and follow your star..."
"Yes?"
"...you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working
hard and learning things and weren't so lazy."
I haven't read any Pratchett yet, but I love this. And
Zan and Martha have both read and liked two or three on
the recommendations we got from you guys (I think starting
with _Thief of Time_, and Helen read that one as well).
Me, I'm trying to work my way through a stack of stuff on
Richard Wagner as well as a volume of Poe's poetry at
the moment.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Pam Crouch
argument I heard between an art student and an engineering student. The
engineering student said that the Mona Lisa is art, and the art student kept
insisting, "No, that's _art_history_." Who really cares? In essence, it
stays the same, regardless of what anyone calls it.
God is Spirit, and they that worship him must do so in spirit and in TRUTH.
So, regardless of where muslims got their God concept, it's pretty useless
without the truth of Jesus. Without Jesus, their worship, even if they
offer it to the "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," is no more
acceptable than a ritual cleansing is to sterilize one for surgery.
If someone in our culture uses the word "God," does that mean they are
talking about YHWH? Is that a safe assumption? If not, then why should we
assume it just because "God" translates to "Allah?" I don't think that's
sound reasoning. However, I don't think it's as important as the issue of
Christ.
--Pam :o)
____________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/austinmetrogifts/
A group for homeschoolers of the gifted in Austin and the surrounding area.
"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote in message
news:40CBC9FC...@netdirect.net...
Jayne Kulikauskas
[]
> I also
> have a Koran in Arabic (I mean that I can't read) that
> I bought in a Cairo souk,
[]
I got a Koran from the public library recently and it ended up being a
parallel edition, i.e. Arabic on one side of the page and English on the
other. I was so distracted by the Arabic that I got about a third of the
way through the Koran and went back to library for a book on reading Arabic
script. So now I'm teaching myself the Arabic alphabet. Once I've
scratched that itch, I'll be able to concentrate on finishing the Koran.
Meanwhile, Happy(9yo) and Bashful (6yo) have started on Latin. (I found a
great program for introducing Latin in the primary grades - "Prima Latina".)
I asked Happy if he knew how to write numbers in Latin. He didn't think he
did until I told him "remember Roman numerals." Then I asked him if he
knew how to write numbers in Arabic. He told me he didn't so I showed him.
You should have seen the look on his face when I wrote the numbers he's been
using all along.
Jayne
Pants DaiLyon
> I really think this is splitting hairs, honestly. It reminds me of this
> argument I heard between an art student and an engineering student. The
> engineering student said that the Mona Lisa is art, and the art student kept
> insisting, "No, that's _art_history_." Who really cares? In essence, it
> stays the same, regardless of what anyone calls it.
Mona Lisa is "art history." A crucifix in a bucket of urine...now *that* is ART!
Pants DaiLyon
> I got a Koran from the public library recently and it ended up being a
> parallel edition, i.e. Arabic on one side of the page and English on the
> other. I was so distracted by the Arabic that I got about a third of the
> way through the Koran and went back to library for a book on reading Arabic
> script. So now I'm teaching myself the Arabic alphabet. Once I've
> scratched that itch, I'll be able to concentrate on finishing the Koran.
When you decide you're ready to read the Q'uran, get the Hadiths, too.
A big problem with the Q'uran is that it isn't in chronological
order. This wouldn't bee too bad if it weren't for the fact that
Muhammad would change his decrees (which were combined into the
Q'uran), and he said (in Surah 2:106) "Whenever We cancel a verse or
throw it into oblivion, We bring one which is better." This means that
if you see two passages that contridict each other, you *must* know
which came later. The Hadiths will tell you what order the they're
in, chronologically.
Michael S. Morris
Monday, the 14th of June, 2004
I said:
I also have a Koran in Arabic (I mean that I can't read) that
I bought in a Cairo souk,
Jayne:
I got a Koran from the public library recently and it ended up being a
parallel edition, i.e. Arabic on one side of the page and English on the
other. I was so distracted by the Arabic that I got about a third of the
way through the Koran and went back to library for a book on reading Arabic
script. So now I'm teaching myself the Arabic alphabet. Once I've
scratched that itch, I'll be able to concentrate on finishing the Koran.
Well, my hat is off to you. Arabic is one language I've tried
to get the hang of the script and have simply failed. I didn't
really want to study the language as a whole, but I'd had the
experience with the strange alphabets of Greek and Russian, and
thinking that they were going to be hard to learn, whereas in fact
it only took a couple of weeks' effort to get to the point of being
able to transliterate the words (what is cool is that a lot of words
in both of those languages become cognate). So, I figured on getting
myself a "Teach Yourself Arabic" book and going only so far as being
able to sound it out. For some reason (maybe my heart not being in
it), I never managed to "get" the alphabet well enough to use it.
It certainly is an utterly beautiful script to look at. When I was
in the summer between being a junior and a senior at Purdue
University, I got to join a "Mediterranean Cultural History Tour".
This was six weeks of backpacking with about 20 students collected
from various universities and led by two history professors,
Ronald Messier of Middle Tennessee State and Gordon Young of
Purdue (if I have remembered correctly). Both of them taught
courses, too, as the tour progressed. So, Messier taught History
of Islam and The Arab-Israeli Conflict, and Young did History of
Ancient Greece and History of Ancient Israel.
We landed in Rome, did Roman sites, did a week in Tunisia, a week in
Cairo and Luxor, then Israel, then Greece (with a side-trip to Istanbul)
and finished off with a week in Sicily and then Pompeii. Anyway, I
remember Messier talking about Islamic art and the fact there is a
proscription against "graven images" which they take so seriously as
not to paint pictures of human beings, and indeed, in only very limited
times and places was the depiction of even animals permitted (you can
see some animal paintings in museums in Tunisia). Anyway, this is why
the art forms of arabesque (geometric decorative patterns) and rugmaking
and calligraphy are developed so exceptionally in Islamic art.
Anyway, I'm probably doomed to the experiencing the Koran only
in English, though I understand Muslims disdain any translation
thereof. I do have hopes in my lifetime still of doing Dante in
Italian and Homer in Greek (I've already read large chunks in
the original), but that's probably as far as it
could go.
Jayne:
Meanwhile, Happy(9yo) and Bashful (6yo) have started on Latin. (I found a
great program for introducing Latin in the primary grades - "Prima Latina".)
I asked Happy if he knew how to write numbers in Latin. He didn't think he
did until I told him "remember Roman numerals." Then I asked him if he
knew how to write numbers in Arabic. He told me he didn't so I showed him.
You should have seen the look on his face when I wrote the numbers he's been
using all along.
We call ours "Arabic" numerals, but at least in modern Arabic,
their numerals are different---they're close for the most part,
but not identical. I suppose what we mean by calling ours
"Arabic" is that they are Arabic-derived.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Pam Crouch
I'm very sorry that I irritated you. Please accept my apologies. I haven't
discarded fencing, and if my son wanted to do it, I would let him, even
though I don't know of anyplace that teaches fencing to preschoolers.
Again, I'm sorry.
--Pam :o)
"Kit Walker" <kitw...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:c99f86b2a0aa443a...@news.teranews.com...
Pam Crouch
which is a contradiction with what we do. We gave well over 10% of our
income away last year. 1/50th is not enough. So, I'm not sure what you
think there is to "learn" by giving less money to the poor(?)
I looked up "bushido" to see exactly what the philosophy of the warrior is,
and I saw pretty much what I expected. Some things I think are in line with
Christianity, and some things definitely are not. Like a lot of
buddhist-influenced thought, I found them to be sort of satisfying to the
soul, but not all that satisfying to the mind, by which I mean, logical.
I'd say although I'm not too thrilled about philosophies that contradict
scripture, I still think that teaching about the nature of the spirit and
how to use it would be my main red flags. I definitely don't want teachings
such as there is some inner power you can tap into and release, or that
everything you need is within you, you are god. You may think these ideas
are in some way analogous to Christian teachings, but I consider them to be
major heresies. Christianity is not about us, it's about Him.
--Pam :o)
"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote in message
news:40CA042F...@netdirect.net...
Pam Crouch
>
>
> Thursday, the 10th of June, 2004
>
>
> Pam:
>
> I hesitate to even respond to this, because you seem have taken a
> deconstructionist stance to my post.
>
>
> I'm at a total loss for the meaning of the word "deconstructionist"
> here. You seemed to think I had some objection to my children
> learning Christian doctrine by going to Sunday school. I
> don't. You also seemed to think I want my children to grow
> up non-Christian. I don't. So, I felt your post required a response
> clarifying those things.
By deconstructionist, I mean that you seem to be ready to disagree with
anything I say, simply because I'm the one who said it. I feel I could make
some harmless or mild statement of fact, and you would find some way to
nitpick it. It's tempting to use reverse psychology. ;o)
I'm not even going to ask about Sunday school, because that could start
infighting amongst the Christians. But, if I were an atheist, I wouldn't
let my kids anywhere near a church, because I would know that at any decent
church they would be taught that I (as an atheist) was spiritually dead, and
that the sunday school teachers would be encouraging my kids to try to
convert me. Also, I wouldn't want my kids accepting things I consider
untrue. I think there is objective truth that we can know, and I think it's
valuable.
>
> Pam:
>
> However, in an effort to be polite,
> I'll continue. Pehaps, *this* time we can
>
> agree to disagree.
>
>
> Pam, we *have* been agreeing to disagree,
Hmm. I would call it "Disagreeing to Agree." ;o) By agreeing to disagree,
I mean, acknowledging our differences, and leaving it at that.
> and
> we are about to agree to disagree on some more.
> I'm sorry that mere contradiction of what you say
> or really mere disagreement, because there hasn't
> been much in the way of contradiction even, should
> lead to an "effort" to be polite.
My politeness is expressed in my taking the time to respond. Normally, I
don't continue discussions when I feel the discussion has gone beyond
ideology and become adversarial. I spend time on usenet to help others, to
discuss things that interest me, and to seek advice, not to do battle, per
se.
This argument is only valid if what Jesus said contradicts 2+2=4. One may
be both a Christian and a mathematician, simultaneously.
Also, I'd like to see what your definition of truth is. That's a tricky
one, since defining truth depends on an assumption that there could be a
"true" definition of it...
> So, we have more truth out there. So, presumably
> it would only be teachings that aren't true which you would want your
> son not to be taught.
Yes.
> Which is a fine thing, I guess (actually it shows
> little faith I think that truth itself will by reason
> vanquish falsehood,
I do not have faith in truth, I have faith in God.
> but I grant that kids do not yet have fully
> fledged minds, and therefore ought to be protected from some
> particularly difficult falsehoods).
Okay, so why continue with this long post? We both agree young minds should
be protected, but we protect them from different things.
> Anyway, I still haven't heard
> anything from you here that necessarily says that Grand Master Yi,
> for instance, is teaching anything in conflict or contradiction of
> any Christian teaching.
Okay, how about this: Last lesson we learned that the school philosophy
teaches "Three times patience, three times consider, three times forgive."
It's written on the wall, and Master Ali read it to my son. That sounds
okay, doesn't it? Could I have a problem with that? Maybe I do. Jesus
said we are to forgive seventy times seven, which, even if you don't take
into account what that colloquialism means, is *way* more than three. So
there's a contradiction for you. My son now has two answers to the question
"How many times should I forgive?"
> I'd say you'd probably have to get pretty
> far into it to find such a contradiction, even if there is one.
> Buddhism is not particularly evangelical, you know.
"Not evangelical" does not mean "not didactic." To me, and to many Xtians,
there is no such thing as "neutral." So, though you may feel that "There
are many paths to enlightenment" is a nice way of including Christianity, I
see it as a false teaching that contradicts what Jesus said about being "THE
way."
> It's
> not out for converts in the same sense that some Christians are.
Just because you're not "out for converts" doesn't mean that you aren't
spreading falsehood. For instance, I was brought up in an era that pretty
much universally accepted the maxim, "Be yourself." (Never mind that it
doesn't answer the question "Who is myself," nor does it establish that
myself is a good thing to be. What if "myself" happens to be an alcoholic
or a sociopath?) It's only recently that I've realized that "be yourself"
is contradictory to Jesus' teachings, because he never told us to "be
ourselves." He told us to "be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is
perfect." There was no evangelism involved in my accepting this idea, which
is definitely contrary to Christianity. It's just a flawed idea I was led
to believe by popular culture (TV, movies, books). So, I don't accept the
reasoning that only prosetylization leads to incorrect ideas, and Buddhists
are not evangelistic, therefore, they cannot impart any wrong ideas to my
child.
> Also, SSR seemed to me to underline what it is that I think is
> probably the case---namely, that you'll find precious little
> Buddhism taught in these martial arts as they are taught in
> the US. So, you seem to think there is such teaching, and
> I remain doubtful.
If you had looked at the link I posted, you would have seen what I'm
referring to. I've done my own research, and I've seen what I consider to
be some spiritual teachings that are related in martial arts classes,
especially in Tai Chi and Aikido. Tai Chi is part of Tukong Moosul, which
you would know, had you researched it.
> But, then again, I don't know who Grand Master Yi
> is, what martial art he is master of,
So why are you trying to give me counsel on the subject?
> and whether he is the only
> choice your son would have to learn that art from.
Not the only, but certainly a nearby option. Not many schools in our area.
>
> In short: You seem to think there is something there which
> is a no-no,
A no-no? Not so much "sin," as "incorrect ideas."
> and I don't see any aspect of it that you have identified
> which looks to me as posing any contradiction to Christianity
> that I can see.
See above.
>
> Pam:
>
> So, though there is some truth in Buddhism, I don't want my son
> latching onto incorrect spiritual ideas at an impressionable age,
because I
> believe that the whole truth can only be found in Christianity.
Anything
> else is not perfect truth. If the people perish for lack of knowledge,
and
> we are to be transformed through the renewing of our minds, then
theology
> and spiritual teachings are of the utmost importance.
>
>
> Here we disagree. You sound to me like the Muslim in the story about
> the burning of the Library of Alexandria---if the books are in agreement
> with the Koran, then they are superfluous, if they contradict it, then
> they are false---in either case, they are unnecessary.
Of course we disagree on the authority of scripture. That's no surprise.
I'm no book-burner; we have many books that couldn't be construed as
Christian. But, as we've discussed before, until my kids are firmly
established in the Christian worldview, we won't be reading literature that
goes contrary to it. To do otherwise would be dishonest of me. I do
believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, so to confuse my
kids with contrary stuff would be like misrepresenting what I really believe
to be true. I do *not* think it is best to present many world views and let
the child choose his/her own path. I believe there is real truth, that I
know what it is, and that it's my responsibility to impart it.
>
> Surely Christianity can not teach one mathematics, physics, biology,
> literature, foreign languages, history, music, art, martial arts, true
> anthropological knowledge of what other people worship and believe,
> and so on and so forth. So I think you are utterly in error in saying
> "the whole truth" can only be found in Christianity.
Unless you know all the things in your list (and much more), plus the fact
that Jesus is Lord, you do not have the whole truth.
> You might be right
> in saying that only one who is also a Christian can find the whole
> truth. That is a different question, and I don't know its answer.
> But, presumably there are truths out there in other subjects than
> "Christianity", is my point.
Again, if we continue this line of discussion, we are going to have to
define truth, which is notoriously hard to do. I have my definition, but
you would never agree to it.
> Which is not to say one's son needs to
> become Buddhist or even buy into any incorrect spiritual ideas in
> order to learn about martial arts that may be a cultural tradition
> associated with Buddhists.
That's what I'm hoping.
>
> Anyway, I may be wrong about this. I am willing to be shown
> how and why. But, my reading of you so far is that you think
> "spirituality" in these martial arts is somehow anti-Christian
I don't think I said that. I'm not concerned that the very study of
fighting and disciplining one's body is somehow tainted by eastern
weirdness. There are all kinds of martial arts, the Krav-Maga being Israeli
martial arts. I'm sure there are many other styles I haven't heard of, and
there's even a "Christian Martial Arts" association. What I'm concerned
with is the actual teachings of the school and the philosophies of the form,
and how they mesh with Christianity.
> and thus it is to you *like* that temple on Okinawa was to
> Kanga. I still think it is *not like* that temple on Okinawa,
> that the cases are different, and that what "spirituality"
> you'd find in a martial-arts program in the States is
> probably completely consonant with at least some Christian
> teaching.
I don't think much of anything is _completely_ consonant with Christian
teaching. In _A_Reasonable_Faith_, William Lane Craig makes a point I think
is germane to this discussion. He states as a disclaimer that, in essence,
_all_ theology is actually heresy, to some degree, because it's not the
Word. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and to some
degree, all teachers have strayed and changed the gospel in some small way.
That doesn't make teaching useless, it just underlines the importance of the
Logos in our faith. None of us is as perfect as Jesus, so none of our words
are as perfect as those of the Living Word.
So, to make a Christ-like analogy, if our Christian preaching be somewhat
heresy, then how much more so is Buddhism's?
I sense that, to some degree, this is a splitters vs. lumpers disagreement.
You are noticing the similarities between buddhism and Christianity, whereas
I am noticing the differences. I do not ask the question, "What could it
hurt?" I ask, "What could it help?"
>
>
> Pam:
>
> You've got an imperative that says freedom for the child to
>
> make up his own mind is more important than any arbitrary
>
> (to you) moral imperative you could impose on the child, right?
>
>
> Not exactly, no. "Die gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten?"
> I believe human minds are free, and therefore that one *cannot*
> impose opinions.
What about cults?
> But I certainly don't think that moral
> imperatives are arbitrary or are mere opinions. In the same
> sense I don't think it is merely an opinion that if hold a
> pencil above the floor it will fall down with an acceleration
> of 9.8 m/s^2. So, it wouldn't be an imposition on a child to
> assert that such acceleration is the truth. Nor would it be
> an imposition on a child to insist that he ought to honor
> the truth and to tell it.
>
But what if the truth is that Anne Frank's family is living in your back
room? I certainly believe that you have morals, but I think it's hard to
defend the why's of morality with no authority figure.
>
>
> Pam:
>
> But I have "Train up a child in which way
> he should go, and he will not depart from it
>
> when he is old."
>
>
> I am well aware of the verse. I even think it's a wise
> proverb. However, I also notice lots and lots of people
> in the world who describe themselves to me as having been
> raised by Christian parents and in Christian churches, who
> no longer agree with what it is they were taught, so
> I also think if you take a verse like that too seriously,
> then the observation of even one backslider would be enough to
> prove that that sort of training was not in fact "the way he
> should go".
>
This verse allows for backsliders. It says, "when he is old," meaning that
even people who are wild in their youth will eventually return to what their
mamas taught them. How many times have you heard, "My mother/dad always
told me..."
>
>
> Pam:
>
> (Notice it doesn't say "when he's a teenager." ;o) )
>
>
> I'm well aware that this verse suggests *good* training
> will lead to no teen rebellion. I agree with that.
> It merely remains to work out what that good training is.
>
I don't think it says that there will be no teen rebellion. I think it says
that we all end up accepting our parents' teachings in some way, even if we
don't realize it.
> Pam:
>
> So, to try to ensure that my children grow up
>
> to be Christians is consistent with my ethic of teaching
> them the truth, and of preserving them from corruption.
>
>
> I understand and respect that that is the case. I
> question whether it works, but it is in my nature
> to question whether anything works, and I bear in mind
> that *you* are your child's parent.
>
>
> Pam:
>
> To you, it's not that important if your child
>
> becomes a Buddhist, Christian,
> or atheist, you seem to be saying(?)
>
>
> It could be incredibly important. However, what is simply prior
> is that they, as adult human beings, will choose that Buddhism, or that
> Christianity, or that atheism for themselves.
I do agree that we all choose our own beliefs.
> I cannot choose it
> for them.
No, but you have a huge amount of influence on them, especially while they
are young. Since I can have an influence, I should use it.
> And I certainly do not want to make them into little agreers
> with myself.
I want my kids to agree with God. They know I'm not perfect. I've admitted
it.
> Disagreement and human difference is good. Argument
> is good. Contradiction is good. It is our friend.
>
>
>
> Pam:
>
> Since you regard all religions to be
> false,
>
>
> Not at all. You can never get that from anything I have said.
>
>
>
> Pam:
>
> and therefore of no effect,
>
>
> Nor that. They could be true, or they could be
> false and to great effect at the same time.
>
>
>
> Pam:
>
> it is okay to allow the child to choose
> their own beliefs,
>
>
> No. If all religions were false, then it would
> be to great and sad effect were I to allow them
> to believe. It would mean I had failed to teach
> them some salient fact and process of reason
> by which they could prove rationally "all religions
> are false".
>
But if you think it's a possibility that Christianity is false, then how can
you allow your kids to attend Sunday school?
>
>
> Pam:
>
> with no influence from you.
>
>
> There are facts and processes of reason, and not only of
> science and of human lore, but of ethics and aesthetics, too,
> that I can certainly teach them. And all of that comes before
> any adult evaluation of Christian doctrine they will have to
> make and choose for themselves if they are going to be Christian.
>
>
>
> Pam:
>
> I can see that would be the
> right thing to do if freedom were a higher
>
> moral imperative than Christ.
>
>
> Freedom isn't a moral imperative, it's the
> human condition.
That's interesting you should say that. Had a talk with an atheist on the
LiveJournal apologetics forum who said he couldn't help his beliefs. I say
we choose our beliefs, but apparently some people feel they just "can't
believe." So you do think that people have free will?
> It's one of those truth thingies
> that come *before* one gets to Christian doctrine,
Not for Calvinists...
> and with which any Christian doctrine would be
> null and void as such did it not have human free will
> in at the very start of it.
I do believe in free will.
>
> Pam:
>
> Is it true you can't indoctrinate someone?
>
>
> I believe you cannot indoctrinate people who have learned
> for themselves truths.
What are these "truths?" Couldn't the process of learning these "truths" be
considered indoctrination? If not, then how are these truths imparted?
Also, how can people learn these truths if they haven't been taught how to
reason or to differentiate truth from falsehood? Seems some people like
that fall prey to cults.
I do think that you can teach a child right from wrong and how to reason.
Seems to me you said there were certain morals you were trying to teach your
kids?
> Their minds will know the
> real meat and will be hungry for it, and will not
> ever accept mere indoctrination to opinion as a
> substitute for it.
>
I do believe that everyone wants their worldview to be an accurate picture
of reality (most of the time.) However, since there is not agreement about
what the truth is, I want to guide my kids to what I believe to be the
truth, so they will hunger for more of _that_ kind of truth.
>
>
> Pam:
>
> I can think of some
> counterexamples to that idea.
>
>
> The only examples I can think of are people
> kept isolated from truth.
Which is?
> And that is pretty hard to
> do.
Leaders have used propaganda to change the minds of millions.
> I make it a basic tenet of my approach to homeschooling
> my own that there will no or at least as few as I can make
> isolations of my children from truth.
>
I also value truth highly, which is why we don't do the Santa thing.
>
>
> Pam:
>
> I think people have different levels of
> mental fortitude, and some are stronger-willed than others, but if you
> expose most people to the same information / stimulus enough times over
a
> period of years, even if they don't like it at first, they will begin to
> tolerate it, and then to gradually accept it. People aren't computers,
so
> it's not like a titration, or anything, but if you couldn't influence
> people's minds, there would be no commercials.
>
>
> I don't know, Pam. I've always loved Dr. Pepper commercials,
> but I've never been able to stand the drink.
>
But you know it's a soft drink sold in the stores in cans, and how to spell
the name, and you didn't learn that from drinking it frequently.
My premise is not, "You can program people's minds" it's that you can
influence people's minds, especially if they are not critical thinkers (as
small children aren't) and if it occurs continually over a period of years
(like when I teach my children about God.)
>
> Pam:
>
> So, I guess you are going to disagree with everything
>
> I just said now?
>
>
> Everything, no. But, I do think you have been jumping to
> lots of conclusions about what I believe that simply
> aren't the case. So, I took care to respond to them.
But why? It's like you don't disagree with what I'm doing (putting my child
in martial arts classes) but with a question I have about it. What does it
matter to you what questions I have about it, especially if my behavior is
the same either way?
>
>
>
> Pam:
>
> Can we agree to disagree this time?
>
>
> Seems to me if I post things which disagree with
> what you have said, of course I am agreeing to
> disagree with you.
>
Agreeing to disagree is acknowledging, "You believe this, and I believe
thus" and then letting it lie. It is not tireless rebuttal. That's why I
hesitated to respond. I started this thread to discuss the spirituality of
certain types of martial arts with mainly other Christians, not to discuss
whether or not I am actually seeing philosophies that clash with
Christianity. I can discern that for myself. If someone said, "That school
of martial arts leads up to meditation and freeing of the spirit as its
goal," then I would have weighed that heavily.
> Mike Morris
> (msmo...@netdirect.net)
>
--Pam :o)
Jayne Kulikauskas
The edition I have now has explanatory footnotes that give that kind of
information. I have been trying to keep from reading them, just to see what
impression I get from reading the Koran alone. I'm hoping to read it a
second time with the footnotes.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
>
> Monday, the 14th of June, 2004
>
> I said:
>
> I also have a Koran in Arabic (I mean that I can't read) that
> I bought in a Cairo souk,
>
> Jayne:
>
> I got a Koran from the public library recently and it ended up being a
> parallel edition, i.e. Arabic on one side of the page and English on the
> other. I was so distracted by the Arabic that I got about a third of
the
> way through the Koran and went back to library for a book on reading
Arabic
> script. So now I'm teaching myself the Arabic alphabet. Once I've
> scratched that itch, I'll be able to concentrate on finishing the Koran.
>
> Well, my hat is off to you. Arabic is one language I've tried
> to get the hang of the script and have simply failed. I didn't
> really want to study the language as a whole, but I'd had the
> experience with the strange alphabets of Greek and Russian, and
> thinking that they were going to be hard to learn, whereas in fact
> it only took a couple of weeks' effort to get to the point of being
> able to transliterate the words (what is cool is that a lot of words
> in both of those languages become cognate). So, I figured on getting
> myself a "Teach Yourself Arabic" book and going only so far as being
> able to sound it out.
That is the point I'm hoping to reach. Since I know some Hebrew, I should
be able to recognize some cognates.
For some reason (maybe my heart not being in
> it), I never managed to "get" the alphabet well enough to use it.
I find the Arabic alphabet the most difficult of any I have studied. Greek
and Cyrillic are easy since they are quite similar to English. However, I
find the Arabic more difficult than Hebrew or Sanskrit which are quite
different. I think what makes the Arabic so hard is that the type is
basically a cursive script. This means most of the letters must be joined
to each other. It is hard to tell where one letter ends and the next begins.
Also, all of the joining letters have a different form depending on whether
the are joined and some even change form depending on which letter they are
joined to. So, while there are only 28 letters, one needs to learn around
double that amount of variations.
> It certainly is an utterly beautiful script to look at.
Yes, it is.
[]
> Anyway, I'm probably doomed to the experiencing the Koran only
> in English, though I understand Muslims disdain any translation
> thereof. I do have hopes in my lifetime still of doing Dante in
> Italian and Homer in Greek (I've already read large chunks in
> the original), but that's probably as far as it
> could go.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Muslim view of translation. The Italian
expression "traduttore, traditore" has a fair bit of truth to it.
> Jayne:
>
> Meanwhile, Happy(9yo) and Bashful (6yo) have started on Latin. (I found
a
> great program for introducing Latin in the primary grades - "Prima
Latina".)
> I asked Happy if he knew how to write numbers in Latin. He didn't think
he
> did until I told him "remember Roman numerals." Then I asked him if he
> knew how to write numbers in Arabic. He told me he didn't so I showed
him.
> You should have seen the look on his face when I wrote the numbers he's
been
> using all along.
>
>
> We call ours "Arabic" numerals, but at least in modern Arabic,
> their numerals are different---they're close for the most part,
> but not identical. I suppose what we mean by calling ours
> "Arabic" is that they are Arabic-derived.
As I understand it, there are two forms of modern Arabic numerals. One, the
one which actually developed in Arabia, is the one that we use. The other,
which was developed in India, is similar but different.
Jayne
Pam Crouch
things. That's really highbrow.
--Pam :o)
____________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/austinmetrogifts/
A group for homeschoolers of the gifted in Austin and the surrounding area.
"Pants DaiLyon" <pantsd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:965205ef.04061...@posting.google.com...
Kanga Mum
> Sunday, the 13th of June, 2004
> linked to. It's funny: There seems to be strong disagreement
> about whether these martial arts necessarily ought to entrain
> Eastern religious beliefs or whether they ought not. And
> one gets this from both sides (umm, I mean the article by
> the Taoist who thinks martial arts are necessarily Eastern,
> and that Christians who imagine they can appropriate the art
> without the non-Christian religious aspects are, well, wrong).
That was the sense I got from the little I had time to read- that
several
views were presented. It was because of that strong disagreement that
I
thought it was a good website to share on the topic.
>
> I don't know---I'm a Westerner and darned skeptical about
> mysticisms of any kind. So, I tend to believe that *of course*
> one could acquire the art and be unswervingly Southern Baptist
> or whatever---that is, *of course* there is no witchcraft or
> magic in it, it's all just discipline and physics.
Perhaps it's connected to the comparison I made of participating in a
pagan
worship service as being something like french kissing somebody other
than
my husband, a thought which I find *really* nauseating, btw.
Most couples would rather not, say, use an engagement ring purchased
with a
different beloved, or use the wedding dress from a first marriage in a
second marriage. Once upon a time, my dh wrote love poetry. I
cherish
those poems. But I wouldn't care to have him take poetry written for
a
previous girlfriend and simply put my name on the top. I wouldn't be
impressed if he took, say, an ode to somebody's dog, and incorporated
it
into love poetry dedicated to me.
The engagement ring, wedding dress, poetry, may all be just things-
there's
nothing significant about them in and of themselves. But there's more
to
them than can be analyzed by scientific instruments, because their
significance is in our minds.
And, of course, you start from a premise which does not believe in
anything
supernatural, right? Those of us who believe in the supernatural will
reach
different conclusions.
Many Christians believe that when, in Jeremiah, God says, "Thus saith
the
Lord, learn not the ways of the heathen" this applies to any heathen
spiritual practices, which would include certain techniques in some
martial
arts, I think.
[ ]>
> Kanga, speaking of not being very relic oriented or inclined to pay money
to visit religious shrines even if connected with 'Christianity':
>
> Come to that, I don't like crucifixes, either.
>
Mike:
> But crucifixes versus crosses is one of those Catholics
> versus Protestants things, and to my way of looking
> (umm, equally sympathetic, equally unsympathetic
> to both Catholicism and Protestantism), the one just seems
> to emphasize the humanity of Christ, and the other
> His divinity.
Yes, there is a difference. I agree, too, that they are just
emphasizing
different things- the suffering Christ, the victorious Christ, and
both are
valid points of emphasis. So I was muddy in expressing myself, because
I
don't
particular care for crosses either. I wouldn't wear one as jewelry,
for
instance. I was going to say that I don't think I have any crosses in
the
house, but to make sure I was speaking truth, I asked the kids and I
looked
over the house kind of quickly- and there is one
here by accident.
One of the girls has done her room in butterflies and dragonflies and
flower
fairies. While cleaning at my uncle's house I came across a little
porcelain dust-catcher sort of thing- a lovely butterfly resting on
what I
thought was a rugged old fence post. I didn't pay much attention to
the
fencepost; it was the butterfly I liked- a vibrant, lovely thing. I
brought
it home and only later
realized that the rugged fence post was a fallen cross- which makes
the
butterfly monsterously out of proportion, btw. Anyway, point is, I
think,
that maybe there really wasn't much of a point other than that kind of
rambling self-centered self analysis of interest to nobody but
oneself. I
am kind of semi choosy about what religious symbols I am comfortable
with.
I like the fish, don't generally care for crosses or crucifixes. If I
were
given a Buddha, though, I'd be in a bigger hurry to have it leave my
house
than I am over the butterfly which turned out to be a cross/new life
metaphor.
I do think both crosses and crucifixes as symbols depend on
> who is doing the interpreting and when. There's a quote
> from George Bernard Shaw about not wanting there to be
> a cross---a symbol of torture---on his grave. I've always
> threatened that were some sort of program of censorship ever imposed
> based on the idea that people have a right to walk around
> being unoffended by things they might see or read in public,
> that, in that case, the first things I would insist
> offend me and therefore would need to be removed are
> the symbols of torture on churches. Of course, this more
> of a pose (or a pose planned as a just-in-case) than anything
> else, but, what the heck.
It's an amusing pose, but probably a waste of mental energy. I
honestly
think you have more to fear from the left in regard to censorship than
from
the Christian Right. We don't agree with each other enough to ever
get
enough power to impose much by way of censorship, for one thing. And
even
if we did get enough power, we still don't agree with each other
enough to
all pick the same things to ban. And libertarian views are not
incompatible
with Christian views in the same way that they seem to be incompatible
with
the extreme left, by which I mean that there are many libertarian/free
market Christians, but not so many libertarian/free-market leftists.
>
>
> Kanga:
>
> I don't object to visiting cathedrals or temples or mosques, and I
> have, in fact, visited sites sacred to beliefs utterly foreign to my
> own. I do draw the line at worshipping there, not because I think
> that is an act fraught with spiritual peril (I think it is a
> spiritually dangerous act, but that's not my first motivation in
> avoiding it), but more immediately, because it would be similar to
> french kissing some man other than my husband. Yuck.
>
Mike:
> It's an interesting and vivid analogy. Thank you. Although, I
> confess I'm not entirely sympathetic.
Kanga: Well, no, you wouldn't be. To me, God is a real, a
breathtakingly
real, Being with whom I have a deeply personal and intimate
relationship,
whereas to you, He's more something like, what, my imaginary friend?
<g>
From my perspective, it's like trying to describe the joys of
parenthood to somebody who has
never had children, or the joys of marriage to a committed bachelor,
or the
colors of a rainbow to a blind man. I fully expect you to be less
than entirely sympathetic.
Kanga: No, I would not worship with 'any' Protestant church, if by
that you
mean
'any' as broadly inclusive, as in, 'just any church is okay as long as
it's
Protestant and not Catholic'- that's not what I mean. Yes, it matters
to me
very much if some
component of the church teachings/services contain false doctrine. No
church is perfect, being made up of maddeningly human type people, but
there
are certain doctrinal issues which are more important to me than
others,
more line drawing, if that makes sense. I'd rather not give a list of
where I would and would not worship or what those line drawing issues
are, because my list would undoubtedly exclude the
denominations of some of my favorite posters here, and I'd rather not
get into that. Conversely, I believe it is Agent Orange who says
that a lot of very nice people here wouldn't get to preach at his
church.
>
> I mean, I could imagine your answer could be, "I'll only
> attend church services in my denomination, sing the hymns I
> already know and approve of, repeat confessions of faith that
> I have already read and agreed with." I could imagine equally,
> "I'm pretty liberal about tolerating divergent forms of worship
> at least when someone's guest, though Catholic services, say,
> are pretty distant in format, and there is enough there that is
> objectionable to me that I will not participate." I could also
> imagine, in a sort of radical Protestant mode, "Ultimately I
> am my own priest, and I can worship God in a mosque, a temple,
> cathedral, whatever, if I find myself there as someone's guest
> (as opposed to being tourist and looking at the art), using what
> I find in their service that fits and simply avoid participating in
> what is not right."
Errr, all of the above yet none of the above?
I wouldn't attend the church services of any denomination without
first finding
out a lot about what they believed and practiced. Partially, this
approach
is informed by the experiences in my youth, when I was much less
careful,
and found myself once at a party which turned out to be a witches'
coven in which I was the only non-wiccan, and they held some kind of
ceremony which I would have rather not been at, and once, when I was
just a few years older, found myself in an extreme charismatic service
which I found most
alarming and which scared my two young children to death- and we
couldn't
get out because we were surrounded by gyrating bodies, people
screaming,
falling on the floor and wriggling, and just total pandemonium. I
felt much worshipful
years later in a Japenese church service where we were singing the
same hymn, but my family
in English, and the Japanese members in Japanese. So anyway, after
that
experience, we don't much except invites to worship elsewhere until
we've
done our homework.
I don't have to sing hymns I already know, but I do have to sing hymns
I
agree with when I am singing to my Lord. Since it only takes me a
moment to
skim ahead of the words and make sure that I am singing something I
can
agree to, being confronted with a new hymn isn't a problem. Um,
probably helps that I sing alto, and I
ad-lib the harmonies from time to time, and don't read music well
enough to
sight read. Most of the time when I hear a hymn (or folk song) I can
hear
an alto part in my head the first time I hear it, so ad libbing is
easy for
me. Hmm. I guess this means I just sing along with the little voice
in my
head. (bwahaha) Ahem. Sorry.
I would not ever repeat a confession of faith with which I did not
agree. I
might read it aloud for educational purposes, but to repeat it in the
way it
is presented in most churches, I would have to agree with it.
And, finally, ultimately, Jesus is the High Priest forever, but
Christianity
as I understand it is also a priesthood of believers. Okay, so what
this means
to me is that when I was stuck in that foreign (to me) church service
surrounded by shouting, screaming, falling down people, I was
certainly in
communion with God (I was praying fervently that nobody would fall on
us,
among other things); and I was not an active participant in what I
thought was gross error- so I
could and did use in the service what fit (the sermon wasn't too bad,
actually), and did not participate in the rest- but I also think it's
one
thing to accidentally or through youthful foolishness find oneself in
such a situation, and it's another to deliberately put oneself in such
a situation. So yeah, I can worship anywhere, but I don't
actively seek out places where I know I'm going to have to be
worshipping counter to
the purposes and intents of those worshipping with me- not to mention
which,
I think there's some kind of assent or tacit approval in attending a
particular
worship service in the first place.
>
> Kanga:
>
> While in Okinawa, we visited many places sacred to the Okinawans,
> including this Buddha at the Okinawa Peace Park:
> http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/karate/okinawa4.html
> I took a couple of our Japanese exchange students there, and they went
> up to the Buddha to pray, and folded paper cranes to add to some
> there. I hung back from the Buddha, not wishing to bow as they did,
> but I had no objection to just being there in the background.
>
>
> Buddhism is weird, or at least complex. Probably no different than
> Christianity in that respect---vast religion, vast history,
> encompassing many different, and sometimes conflicting, doctrines.
>
> The Buddhist scriptures---the Dhammapada, for example---seem to
> me quite simple and well, the life of the Buddha, seems to me
> a compelling and beautiful story.
There are aspects that are lovely, but I do not find it beautiful to
abandon
one's wife and children (or was it only one child? At any rate,
unlovely).
I don't know- I think that Buddhism (and other eastern religions) are
squishy, and it is that very tendency to morph, to be syncretist, that
is
very easy to absorb without realizing it, and quite opposed to
Christian
doctrine.
>
> Kanga:
>
> Had I been asked to make a donation, however, I would
>
> have had to decline (our church does not solicit donations
>
> from nonbelievers, either, and we generally make it clear
>
> when passing the collection plate that this is for believers
>
> not unbelievers).
>
MIke:
> This is maybe a contrast, but my sense is that if I were a
> guest in a church at a worship service, I would be *wrong*
> not to contribute to the collection plate. The minister
> has a salary to be paid, there's a light bill for the
> church, and so on and so forth. I may not agree with what
> was said, but usually I'm sure it was meant well. I wouldn't
> interpret my contribution as worship itself or as agreement
> with the worship that went on there.
But it is support in the work that church is doing- and if I think
what they
are doing is promulgating false doctrine, I'm not going to give them
the
funds to support that activity. I think this is probably an issue of
our
fundamental divide, me being a Christian and you not. I can see why
you would feel as you do, and I can't fault you for wishing to
contribute to the collection plate at a church service you've
attended, given your starting premise as an unbeliever. OTOH, my
starting point is different, so the meaning of the act of contributing
is also different.
Generally, at the churches we attend, the folks passing the plate make
a point of announcing over hte
collection that this is a convenient opportunity for the members of
the
church, and we are not asking nonbelievers to contribute.
>
>
> Kanga:
>
> The temple visit my daughter's class was making was described to the
> parents something like this (I think now this was not altogether an
> accurate description):
> "Shichi-Go-San, or seven five three, day, is a day where the local
> nationals thank the local deities for their special protection over
> all children ages 7, 5, and 3. They thank the local gods by dressing
> up these children, taking them to the shrine, paying a donation to the
> local shrine, and eating special candy made there and only available
> on that day..."
>
> The only kids going on this field trip were the kindergarten classes
> (ie, the five year olds), we were required to dress them up
> (reasonable enough, as it would have been rude not to), and (and this
> was really the clincher for me) it was required that we send a
> donation for the children to give to the local shrine, and the kids
> would be getting candy from the shrine.
>
MIke:
> Even I would have problems with it, given all you say. I mean,
> it's like baptizing an infant or something---it offends my sense
> of respect for human free will and the idea that acts of worship
> need to come from a well-informed adult mind that has chosen
> those acts. Consent is missing. And with what you say, it isn't
> watching some local ceremony, it's consenting to worship.
Incidentally, when this has come up before you have pointed out that
the teacher and school were actually not showing as much respect to
the shinto or whichever eastern religion it was as I was. You have
explained it as me taking it seriously and them taking it about as
seriously as making yakisoba for culture class- I had never thought of
it like that before, but I think you are quite correct. Thanks for
pointing that out.
Maybe.
I guess I'm a little fuzzy on why being intolerant of intolerance
isn't intolerance also. I think the reason I'm not clear on this is
because so often, what people mean when they accuse someone or
something of being intolerant is that this person restricts something
I would not. I mean, you think the Bluedorns are prudish, so I would
guess that if they were teaching a class on literature you wouldn't
sign up your kids to go. Pam has some concerns about some aspects of
eastern mysticism that she thinks may seep into some martial arts
classes, so she's careful about signing up her son to go to just any
class. You think she's wrong. I'd venture to guess that quite a few
people around here and elsewhere think you're wrong in your objection
to bowdlerization or expurgation of some books or topics for children.
I am still not clear on the substantive difference between the two
points of view. They strike me as alike in kind.
> Kanga:
>
> I think it's probably similar, although I could be wrong, not being
> Pam's alterego. But I think of the fact that I will not have pagan
> idols in my house- we were given a Buddha or something while in Japan,
> and we got rid of it right away. I'm not afraid of it. I don't
> believe inanimate objects can be demon possessed, but I don't like it
> or what it represents and I won't have it in my house.
> I don't think Buddhism and Christianity are as compatible, spiritually
> speaking, as you seem to think, and I object to the one and won't have
> it in my house, because it's not compatible with the other.
>
Mike:
> Whereas, I treasure a mezuzah we keep nailed to the
> doorpost. It was on the doorpost of the first apartment
> Martha and I shared, where it was left by the previous Jewish
> tenant. When the landlord went to paint the house and
> was going throw it away, I asked to have it. I also
> have a Koran in Arabic (I mean that I can't read) that
> I bought in a Cairo souk, and a rosary made of olive wood
> beads from Vatican City, and an reproduction icon from Greece
> of St. George slaying the dragon. (Well, not to mention
> a pair of lacquered Chinese lions and a bust of Thomas Jefferson
> and a reproduction Cycladic votive head, all of which I
> consider very cool.)
Well, of course you do. And so did the DoD school think it was cool
to have the five year olds go to the temple or shrine or whatever on
Shichi-Go-San day. It means something different to you than it does
to me.
> Kanga:
>
> In spite of which, I am reading and enjoying Zen and the ARt of
> Motorcycle Maintenance, as well as Science and Human Values by Jacob
> Bronowski, as per your recommendations.
> Thanks for mentioning them- I had assumed there would not be anything
> in Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance that I would care for,
> not liking Zen or motorcycles, but I'm finding it a fascinating
> read,and I'm sorry I didn't read it earlier.
>
Mike:
> I don't remember when I gave you the Pirsig recommendation,
> but I like that book.
Not a recommendation as such. You just mentioned it recently in one
of these mehsc discussions, and referenced his point of view about
something and I was intrigued. It was also recently reviewed in The
Common Reader Catalog, and I heavily weight book mentions from both
you and the CR catalog.
> I read it as an assigned book in
> my freshman Honors Composition course at Purdue where Prof.
> Charles Ross assigned it in 1978. It was just a beautifully written
> book about I think (he says after all these years) the
> Aristotelian/Platonic divide in western philosophy, as
> explored in retrospect through this former philosophy student
> who goes back through the history of his own mental and
> spiritual collapse. My sense is, it's very little "about"
> Zen really. I recall approaching it also with very little
> interest in Zen, and also very little interest in motorcycles. Umm,
> but I think what I appreciated finally was the three cheers
> for the common sense of Aristotle in opposition to the
> romantic flights of Plato. I.e., that there is something
> to be said for craftsmanship and _techne_ and maintaining one's
> motorcycles and gardens and doing one's dishes I suppose
> in such a way that one works one's job right and well
> in the mundane sphere of common duties, and not sloppily
> because one always hopes to be taken away from it all.
I agree with your assessment, although there's a walloping good dose
of Zen in the small afterward he wrote for the tenth anniversary
addition- Chris was murdered when he was 22 years old, and naturally,
this left his father deeply grieved and living life as a sort of
dreary one pointless day after another kind of existance, but he
believes that the child he has had with his second wife is Chris
reincarnated, so all is well now (which strikes me as monstrously
insensitive to the grief experienced by Chris' mother).
But the book itself was really quite a good, solid read.
For my fellow believers: a similar, yet Christ centered philosophical
approach, I also like Brother Laurence's Practice the Presence of God:
http://www.ccel.org/l/lawrence/practice/htm/i.htm
>
[ ]
>
> road to a choir gig. But, did you like _Eats, Shoots and Leaves_?
> Everyone here read that in the last month or so, and
> enjoyed it muchly. It's one of those "There will always
> be an England" books, I think. The one one I wanted to
> quarrel with her on was "Two Weeks Notice" since
> I think her analogy that it should be "Two Weeks'
> Notice" because you'd write "One Week's Notice"
> might just as well have been to "One Week Notice".
> And that's the one she says she stood outside a
> movie queue and held up a placard with the apostrophe to the
> marquee?
*Loved* the book, found it most charming and delightful. Yes,
that is the one where she stood outside holding up a placard with the
apostrophe.
Because my first school experience was in Canada, and because we
read so many British books, the girls and I sometimes spell and
punctuate in a quasi British fashion. Tigger was quite tickled to
learn that she doesn't use quotations marks incorrectly, she only uses
them in British fashion. She intends to persist.
Finished Zen/Motorcycles adn a couple of the others on my list, and
needing something light, I just inhaled Connie Willis' Domesday Book
for the second time around. Am nearly through with 200 Percent of
Nothing.
We've begun to work through The Joy of Thinking DVD from The TEaching
Company.
I helped Doodlebug through a fraction problem without feeling like my
head was going to explode, without palpitations, and without sweaty
palms.
Better yet, she actually understood what I explained.=)
Kanga
Kanga Mum
finished with my first reply, I accidentally hit the wrong button and
lost everything, everything, everything. Maddening. And now Tigger
is waiting less than patiently for the computer and I'm starting over
again. I hate it when that happens.
"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote in message news:<40CAAB00...@netdirect.net>...
Small differences vs big differences. There are differences big
enough to change the fundamental nature of who God is, and I think the
differences in teh Koran and the Mormon religion both do just this. It
is no longer the God of the Bible we are talking about, and using the
same name doesn't make him the same person anymore than my changing my
name to Michael Morris would make me you.
>
> The point is the Koran says Allah is the God of Abraham
> and Isaac. The Bible itself is referred to in the Koran
> as "the Book", and it is assumed as simply true.
Excepting where it differs from the Koran.
> "The People of the Book" (namely Christians and Jews)
> are certainly *not* assumed true or trustworthy,
> but, to Muslims, that isn't God's fault.
>
> Allah is the God of the Bible in the sense that He
> is not the Hindu Ganesh or the Greek Phoebus Apollo
> or the Roman Quirinus or a Native American's Great
> Manitou or an Aztec's Huitzilipochtli. What I will
> grant you is certainly that Islam is distinct from
> Christianity, but the difference is not in that they
> worship different gods, it is rather that they
> hold different doctrines (teachings) about the same
> God. Ditto for Mormons, by the way, who also clearly
> worship the God of the Bible, with some doctrinal
> interpretations thereof that are going to be different
> than yours.
>
Mormons worship a deity of flesh and spirit, who marries many women,
who copulates with them and produces children, who was once a man like
us and became deity by being really, really good, and thus gaining the
right to create His own planet peopled with his literal offspring, who
will have the right to become gods when they have been really, really
good, and can then create their own planets. Incidentally, this
Mormon deity lives on another planet (Kol? I think). This is not the
God of the Bible.
> I wrote:
>
> On the other hand, zakat seems a perfectly fine thing
> in its own right. I have read that Muslim almsgiving
> in fact way outdoes Christian generosity in
> practice, and, well, to a Christian, there seems to
> be something to learn here from Muslim practice.
> Kanga:
> I suppose it could, but most Christians I know
>
> tithe ten percent.
>
>
> Umm, in the first place, I do not think that most
> Christians do tithe ten percent. I can well believe
> that most that you know do, but I am certain the numbers
> on average among Christian church members are far, far
> short of ten percent. I've had ministers tell me this
> is simply the case.
Yes, I agree that most professing Christians do not tithe as they are
instructed in the Bible.
>
> In the second place, tithing to give to one's church
> is *not the same thing as almsgiving*, though I well
> understand that some of church income does get distributed
> in the form of alms to the poor.
But Tithing is *not the same thing as giving to one's church.* It can
include that, but is certainly not limited to it. When I speak of
tithing I am not thinking exclusively of the collection plate at
church, but also of the money sent to earthquake relief efforts, given
to the single mother at the grocery store, slipped in an envelope and
given anonymously to the family where Dad just lost his job and the
washer broke, of the bag of groceries taken to the battered women's
shelter, of the tickets to a concert given to a family who could not
otherwise afford to go, etc.
>
>
>
> Kanga:
>
> We just don't talk about it much, because most giving is secret.
> OTOH, some Christians understand tithing to be an Old Testament Law,
> and the NT version is 'give as it has been given unto you...." which I
> interpret as a kind of a sacred sliding scale. At any rate, it's
> never seemed to me that God lowered the bar when He raised the gift.
>
>
> It's not really about asking Christians to talk about it, it's
> more an issue of what percentage of people's incomes are
> given in alms to the poor among Christians versus this number
> among Muslims. I have read in several places the claim that
> Muslims do better on average than do Christians.
I do not doubt this, and it should certainly shame those who claim
Christ into doing more. But I think that when the Bible tells us to
give a minimum of ten percent, we might do better to follow the Bible
than to look to the Muslim example of 1/50 for instruction. Also I
think it is more frequent that there are nominal Christians who are
Christians in the same way they are Americans or Hoosiers- by
accidents of birth and family inheritance. So you are comparing a
large portion of people to whom Christianity really doens't mean much
more than settling the question of what to do on Easter Sunday and
Christmas Eve to Muslims who take their faith seriously. Lots of
folks who call themselves Christians simply are not.
Okay, in my first post (the one I stupidly lost) I really think I said
something profound and insightful here, so can you just take my word
for it and agree that I'm right? No? I thought not. Sigh.
I think you do not really understand what biblical Christianity is,
nor who God is, and I don't really expect you to, because this is
largely a relationship issue. But you don't know my God, and you keep
trying to tell me that these counterfeits are Him, when I know
perfectly well they are not. If I changed my name to Michael Morris,
that wouldn't make me you. I could forge posts (well, I couldn't, but
some people could) from you or from one of the regulars here, and I
could post some really outrageous things, and it wouldn't take long
before somebody here would catch on that this was not the *real* Mike
Morris or whomever. We would know this because we know something of
the real person behind the post.
You don't know my God.
I mentioned that we were watching some dvds from The TEaching Company.
One of them we're watching is My Favorite Universe. In one part he
talks about how to us here on our earth, our perspective of the earth
is one full of texture, depth, high mountains, deep trenches,
undulating, rough and uneven surfaces. However, given the distance
between our highest point nad lowest point, if we shrunk the earth
down to the size of a billiard ball, the planet would be smoother than
a billiard ball.
God is somebody real, personal, and living to me, somebody with whom I
have a relationship. He's not real to you. To me, there is texture,
personality, and heighth and depth. To you, there's a billiard ball,
and one billiard ball is really very much like another.
There's no reason for you to feel the same way about Him that I do,
(except for your own eternal benefit, of course), but you can no more
hope to convince me that my God is the deity in the Koran or the Book
of Mormon than you could convince me that my dh would like breakfast
in bed or rice cakes in his lunch. I know him, so I know better.
Sure you could. And it would be interesting, but it would have no
authoritative value, nor would it prove what you seem to think it
would. Professing Christians have been wrong before, are wrong now and
will be wrong again (even, quite possibly, this one). What would be
of authoritative value would not be showing us some way some other
Christian has screwed up, but showing us where the Bible professes
that same thing.
I wish, wish, wish I had not messed up that previous post. I am sure
I said more and said it better, but this will have to do. Of course,
maybe my memory's at fault and I'm wrong about saying it better- I'll
never know.
Kanga
P.S. Jemima made the Dean's List=)
Scott Bryce
> Mormons worship a deity of flesh and spirit, who marries many women,
> who copulates with them and produces children, who was once a man like
> us and became deity by being really, really good, and thus gaining the
> right to create His own planet peopled with his literal offspring
In fact, the Mormon god is exactly the same type of being that you and I
are. In Mormon theology, "god" does not describe a particular being, or
particular class of being, but a priesthood office. Calling someone
"god" would be like calling him a 32nd degree mason, or CEO. It is an
earned title that can be rescinded at any time that a majority of the
existing beings in the universe decide that he is no longer worthy of
that title.
> Incidentally, this
> Mormon deity lives on another planet (Kol? I think).
Kolob.
Pam Crouch
they get that idea. Is that in the book of Mormon, or what?
--Pam :o)
____________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/austinmetrogifts/
A group for homeschoolers of the gifted in Austin and the surrounding area.
"Scott Bryce" <sbr...@scottbryce.com> wrote in message
news:10d4lhb...@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Bryce
> I've heard about the Mormon-alien connection before, but don't know where
> they get that idea. Is that in the book of Mormon, or what?
Not in the BOM. Joseph Smith made up his theology as he went along. It
got more and more off the wall as he went. This stuff comes from some of
his later sermons.
The idea that "god" is a priesthood office seems to be more current. I
never encountered it as I was researching old Mormon sources. I have
heard it a lot in the last few years. It is certainly consistent with
what the early Mormon leaders taught.
--Scott