are the gracies religious?

[Gambledub]

Stop being a coward. That's twice you've avoided my question. It's because you are ashamed of your instructor and have no self respect. I demand you answer my question. Where do you train and who is your black belt under? You're going to hell. God hates you for avoiding my question.

To be fair to Old Guy, it does seem kind of irrelevant to ask seeing as this has turned to a religious discussion. I could understand asking if it was a technique discussion. But I could understand why someone wouldn't want to say.

 

[Kenny from MD]

To be fair to Old Guy, it does seem kind of irrelevant to ask seeing as this has turned to a religious discussion. I could understand asking if it was a technique discussion. But I could understand why someone wouldn't want to say.

Nope, he's going to hell and he's a coward.

 

[Oldguy]

Stop being a coward. That's twice you've avoided my question. It's because you are ashamed of your instructor and have no self respect. I demand you answer my question. Where do you train and who is your black belt under? You're going to hell. God hates you for avoiding my question.

Are you stalking me now?

 

[Kenny from MD]

Are you stalking me now?

Still won't give me the answer I've demanded? You hate your instructor that much? You are that ashamed of your belt? Must be a fake black belt. Fake black belts go to hell. Coward.

I love this game you taught me!!

 

[Oldguy]

Still won't give me the answer I've demanded? You hate your instructor that much? You are that ashamed of your belt? Must be a fake black belt. Fake black belts go to hell. Coward.

I love this game you taught me!!

You lost the intellectual argument. So, you now are stalking me.

 

[Kenny from MD]

You lost the intellectual argument. So, you now are stalking me.

Au contraire, I never engaged in the intellectual argument.
Must suck to train under a professor you're ashamed of.

 

[vinniefebs]

You lost the intellectual argument. So, you now are stalking me.

So are you admitting that at some point you wore stalking him? hmmnn

this thread has gone out of control.... hahahaha

 

[Oldguy]

It's official. I have my first ever stalker.

 

[Kenny from MD]

It's official. I'm a fake black belt.

Fixed.

 

[cms9690]

Yeah... a mod should probably lock this clearly unrelated thread before it disassembles our previously nice little community that we had on this sub-forum.

Why can't we just argue about gi vs no-gi, guyz?

 

[Musheen]

There is archaeological evidence for a lot of things discussed in the New Testament. Obviously the area existed, Pontius Pilate existed, Tiberius was a real emperor, etc. They have also found the tombs of important figures like Paul. Obviously Jesus has no tomb to find because he resurrected.

The second paragraph contains the most common objection, and I understand where it is coming from. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But I am willing to accept that it is indeed possible for such a thing as described in the Gospels to happen. If you accept that it is possible without requiring overwhelming evidence, the normal historical evidence that we use for non religious events is pretty good on this one.

Balto have you read "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" by Reza Aslan? I think you would find it interesting.

 

[Throwing Dummy]

I guess I would expect people who train BJJ to only accept techniques that actually work, and would therefor be inclined to reject the idea of god, and there is no evidence to draw upon, and god is not required to explain the function of our universe.

It's sort like saying, here are the reasons an armbar from guard works; details that prevent posture and escape, hip pressure applied to elbow joint (or whatever degree of detail is your thing), and an invisible giant purple kangaroo that blesses your movements and not your opponent.

The armbar works without the Kangaroo, right?

The concept of a god helped to explain things that were not well understood, and as time has gone by, many things that were thought fact are now dismissed (or perhaps thought of as parables now instead). The need for a god is less and less (god of the gaps argument - I'm sure most of you know it), and will continue to diminish as we answer more and more of the troubling questions that confounded the earliest of brilliant people who created god(s) to answer them.

Only in ignorance (which it seems the most devoutly and fundamentally religious would like to ensure is the general state of things) can the idea of god continue without being deeply questioned, and continually undermined.

Anyway, this is a war room discussion. Oldguy and 50/50 would be exchanging knowledge on technique and position right now if this had not come up.

Let's get back to important matters, like why an armbar works, and how to make it work better.

Meanwhile, I'm getting more popcorn, this is a good one.

 

[Oldguy]

Throwing Dummy, you have explained the exact reason why I became a Christian. Prior to BJJ, I practiced Karate for years. I sat stunned and watched as the first UFC proved BJJ was the real deal. I immediately started training Jiu Jitsu. The UFC proved ground fighting was important.

Similarly, I just didn't close my eyes and decide I was a Christian. I wanted proof. I researched prophesies relating to the life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah. The overwhelming evidence is that he was exactly who he claimed to be.

John 14

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[Kenny from MD]

"I researched prophecies"

 

[Oldguy]

"I researched prophecies"

Still stalking?

 

[Gambledub]

I guess I would expect people who train BJJ to only accept techniques that actually work, and would therefor be inclined to reject the idea of god, and there is no evidence to draw upon, and god is not required to explain the function of our universe.

It's sort like saying, here are the reasons an armbar from guard works; details that prevent posture and escape, hip pressure applied to elbow joint (or whatever degree of detail is your thing), and an invisible giant purple kangaroo that blesses your movements and not your opponent.

The armbar works without the Kangaroo, right?

The concept of a god helped to explain things that were not well understood, and as time has gone by, many things that were thought fact are now dismissed (or perhaps thought of as parables now instead). The need for a god is less and less (god of the gaps argument - I'm sure most of you know it), and will continue to diminish as we answer more and more of the troubling questions that confounded the earliest of brilliant people who created god(s) to answer them.

Only in ignorance (which it seems the most devoutly and fundamentally religious would like to ensure is the general state of things) can the idea of god continue without being deeply questioned, and continually undermined.

Anyway, this is a war room discussion. Oldguy and 50/50 would be exchanging knowledge on technique and position right now if this had not come up.

Let's get back to important matters, like why an armbar works, and how to make it work better.

Meanwhile, I'm getting more popcorn, this is a good one.

I had a guy at work who was one of those real annoying atheists, that every conversation that's what he would bring the conversation back too. He also was a kung fu fanatic and believed Shaolin monks were the best fighters in the world. I pretty much used this argument in reverse to convince him how illogical he was in not believing in a god based on a lack of evidence. Yet how he was willing to believe in a TMA on the same grounds.

Throwing Dummy, you have explained the exact reason why I became a Christian. Prior to BJJ, I practiced Karate for years. I sat stunned and watched as the first UFC proved BJJ was the real deal. I immediately started training Jiu Jitsu. The UFC proved ground fighting was important.

Similarly, I just didn't close my eyes and decide I was a Christian. I wanted proof. I researched prophesies relating to the life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah. The overwhelming evidence is that he was exactly who he claimed to be.

John 14

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Why didn't you say this earlier? Such conclusive evidence.

I will counter with...

"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"

and if you do not believe that, then surely this is irrefutable evidence...

GANDALF: End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it.

PIPPIN: What? Gandalf? See what?

GANDALF: White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.

 

[Balto]

This evidence of a major event you refer to, is any of it outside of the bible?

This is a good point to expound on.

First off, yes there is some completely secular evidence that something pretty significant happened at that place in time. Just the fact that Christianity even exists seems to indicate that something happened to convince some people to change. Also the fact that the early Christians were harshly persecuted for their beliefs, many being martyred and tortured to death. St. Peter was crucified upside down; St. Paul merely had his head cut off because he was a Roman citizen. None of them really gained any material benefits for their beliefs in their lifetimes; someone like Paul actually gave up a relatively cushy life for a life of persecution just to preach the Gospel.

There is also a brief note about Jesus and this event being historical in the secular works of Josephus. It's not a very significant note, but it is there and completely separate from the Bible.

Regarding the other historical evidence, it comprises the Bible itself. The Gospels were not written with the intention of becoming part of the Bible. They were actually written as independent historical accounts. They meet the same criteria we use for other historical accounts from the ancient world. The whole reason they are in the Bible in the first place is because, sometime around the year 400 AD, Christians decided to pull together the best historical material they had about Jesus and canonize it into the New Testament. Until then, there was no real New Testament in the modern sense, just the separate books floating around.

So one of the big misconceptions is that the books of the Bible cannot be historical because they are in the Bible. That is the wrong order of things. The books of the Bible were picked later to be in the Bible specifically because the early Christians got together in councils and agreed that they were reliable enough to go in there.

So the Gospels came first, then the Bible a few hundred years later. It's not like Christians had been around for a few hundred years, realized they needed a New Testament, and had the Pope commission one that would be tailor made to the faith. It was not written that way.

In fact the Gospels actually seem to contradict themselves in certain minor details. For example, it's not totally clear who was the first person to see Jesus when he resurrected. Some parts say Mary Magdalene, some parts say Peter, etc.

These were written independently, and like most independent eyewitness accounts, they don't 100% agree in every single detail. That is usually taken as evidence that they are even more historical, as four historical accounts that are in 100% absolute agreement are more likely to be all written by the same people rehearsing their stories with each other.

 

[Balto]

But why is their view a less accurate view of what Christianity is than yours? Is it simple a matter of numbers? Such as, 64% of Christians believe such-and-such to be true, therefore such-and-such is Christian. Or is it a matter of authority?

I think it is mostly a matter of numbers.

The majority of Christians in the world are Roman Catholic, so that is >50% right there. The Roman Catholic Church believes in evolution and science.

There is also a large number of Orthodox Christians. They have very similar beliefs to Catholics on most issues.

The other large group is Protestant. This can be a mixed bag, but most Protestant denominations also believe in evolution and science. Some don't, and those are the ones that tend to get picked out in these discussions.

Which group are the "real Christians" is a huge debate that has spawned hundreds of years of war and misery. I prefer to just not make a judgment on that one. I would say I am non-denominational, but I was raised Catholic and now go to an Episcopal church.

 

[Balto]

Balto have you read "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" by Reza Aslan? I think you would find it interesting.

I have not read it, but I have heard of it before. I do think I would enjoy reading it.

I have read little excerpts in articles and stuff. If I'm remembering correctly, he is arguing against mainline Christianity, but I like to hear the counter arguments so I will see if I can pick it up at the library.

 

[Gambledub]

This is a good point to expound on.

First off, yes there is some completely secular evidence that something pretty significant happened at that place in time. Just the fact that Christianity even exists seems to indicate that something happened to convince some people to change. Also the fact that the early Christians were harshly persecuted for their beliefs, many being martyred and tortured to death. St. Peter was crucified upside down; St. Paul merely had his head cut off because he was a Roman citizen. None of them really gained any material benefits for their beliefs in their lifetimes; someone like Paul actually gave up a relatively cushy life for a life of persecution just to preach the Gospel.

There is also a brief note about Jesus and this event being historical in the secular works of Josephus. It's not a very significant note, but it is there and completely separate from the Bible.

Regarding the other historical evidence, it comprises the Bible itself. The Gospels were not written with the intention of becoming part of the Bible. They were actually written as independent historical accounts. They meet the same criteria we use for other historical accounts from the ancient world. The whole reason they are in the Bible in the first place is because, sometime around the year 400 AD, Christians decided to pull together the best historical material they had about Jesus and canonize it into the New Testament. Until then, there was no real New Testament in the modern sense, just the separate books floating around.

So one of the big misconceptions is that the books of the Bible cannot be historical because they are in the Bible. That is the wrong order of things. The books of the Bible were picked later to be in the Bible specifically because the early Christians got together in councils and agreed that they were reliable enough to go in there.

So the Gospels came first, then the Bible a few hundred years later. It's not like Christians had been around for a few hundred years, realized they needed a New Testament, and had the Pope commission one that would be tailor made to the faith. It was not written that way.

In fact the Gospels actually seem to contradict themselves in certain minor details. For example, it's not totally clear who was the first person to see Jesus when he resurrected. Some parts say Mary Magdalene, some parts say Peter, etc.

These were written independently, and like most independent eyewitness accounts, they don't 100% agree in every single detail. That is usually taken as evidence that they are even more historical, as four historical accounts that are in 100% absolute agreement are more likely to be all written by the same people rehearsing their stories with each other.

What is your take on the lack of contemporary records of Jesus?