Image via via Mark Hill.
Mark Driscoll, the prominent West Coast mega-church minister at the helm of Mars Hill Church is getting some tough publicity for his approach to disciplining his members. But its an ill wind that blows no good as the hype brought his interesting take on MMA to my attention.
Driscoll is not only an outspoken advocate of MMA, he's also very well informed. Check this ~10,000 word piece he wrote in November. Not only does he make a case for combat sports as part of a Christian's life, he also outlines the rules, history and ethic of the sport:
Today, there remains much controversy around the sport due to what I believe are two primary reasons. One, many people simply do not understand the rules in place to help make MMA safer for the athletes. Two, it's a new sport and will take some time and the kind of exposure that main events on FOX will provide to quiet some critics.
...
Some Christians will vocally declare that we must reject MMA. Sometimes it's because they simply do not understand the nature of the sport and misperceive it, and other times it's because they are pacifists theologically who don't condone violence in any form. Their picture of Jesus is basically a guy in a dress with fabulous long hair, drinking decaf and in touch with his feelings, who would never hurt anyone. The problem is that Jesus probably had short hair (1 Corinthians 11 says it was a disgrace in that day for a man to have long hair), was in good shape from a labor job and lots of walking across rugged terrain, and upon his return will come again not in humility but rather in glory.
Of course he's also got some concerns that strike me, as a non-Christian, as rather eccentric if not deeply ignorant:
Additionally, some argue that we should reject MMA because some aspects of the sport stem from Eastern religions and philosophy. Indeed, this was some of the pushback on my recent post on yoga, "Christian Yoga? It's a Stretch." To this I would agree on a certain level. I would not encourage anyone to study under a teacher who, in addition to combat techniques, was also pushing non-Christian philosophies and Eastern spirituality. As stated earlier, MMA involves a host of various combat traditions, including disciplines such as wrestling and boxing that do not have roots in Eastern religion. Further, as I stated in the yoga post, it's wholly acceptable for Christians to engage in the physical aspects of stretching, including yoga-type stretches, without engaging in the practice of yoga itself as it's been understood and practiced for thousands of years. My further caution was to not use the word yoga since it has such religious and cultural background that is antithetical to Christianity. Similarly, one can practice combat sports and learn various techniques without immersing oneself in the philosophy and culture of such activities.
More after the jump including Driscoll using quotes from prominent fighters to cement his stance...
He also quotes from several MMA fighters who are practicing Christians including UFC light heavyweight champ Jon Jones, legendary veterans Ken Shamrock and Matt Lindland and Ben Henderson. Here's some quotes he runs from Henderson, who fights for the UFC lightweight title at UFC 144:
"Through music, that's one way I like to proclaim my faith. I try not to be overly pushy, but let people know. . .I'm not the best at converting people, but what I can do is live my life a certain way. . . I don't do the club scene, I don't go to bars. By people seeing that, that affects them in a bigger way than me talking about it.
"Before all my fights, the only thing I pray for is strength and honor. . .I'm not one of those guys who is about the violence and. . .idolizing the lifestyle of money and fame. A lot people, when they fight, they're afraid of losing. I realize there's something more important in my life. So I don't fight to not to lose, I fight to win."
But rest easy, he's not saying that a good Christian HAS to cage fight:
Not everyone should participate in MMA, watch it, or even enjoy it. The Bible doesn't command us to, and God's people are free to operate according to conscience on this matter.
Now I'm not bringing this up so we can hate on Mr. Hill or his faith, I just found it to be an interesting perspective on MMA. Tread lightly in the comments. We'll have the ban hammer ready and we're not very forgiving.
The discussion should be limited to the context of the piece, ie how people of faith reconcile their fondness for MMA with their beliefs. Any attempt to steer the discussion into one of the actual or relative merits of any particular faith or lack of faith will result in a swift banning.
2 recs | 578 comments
i see green in this thread's future.
gspmademegay - February 12, 2012
I see alot of JesusNeverTapped.jpgs
The Lethal Haze - February 12, 2012
How could he have tapped?
His wrists were nailed to a fucking cross!
Sugel Mendoza - February 12, 2012
Verbal submission.
“My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
I'd prepare the banhammer.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
PREPARE THYSELVES
Andy Davis - February 12, 2012
I'm not even going to use words in this thread, but I'll leave this here.
Derek Suboticki - February 12, 2012
That's right, I need my Messiah to be ripped!
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
I wonder who his chemist is...
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
well, some people tend to see Ronald Reagan the same way, so this is hardly surprising. impressive, though.
Victor Rodriguez - February 12, 2012
CAN I GET AN AMEN!!!!
Elitex10x - February 12, 2012
THEFILMGUY - February 12, 2012
Not if your audience is the Toronto crowd at UFC 129
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
I was there for that, hilariously awkward
jammin.. - February 12, 2012
Ouch, dude.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
lovely moment
he bullied other crowds into contributing but Toronto wasn’t having it
Cunny - February 12, 2012
lol
“bullied”
RolloTomasi - February 12, 2012
heh
so to speak
i’ve seen him repeat the question more assertively until the crowd caved
Cunny - February 13, 2012
Very interesting Nate!
I’m a sucker/magnet for these types of articles. It’s very interesting to me to see any religion/philosophy actively engaging in these sorts of discussions. The world is evolving, and religions in general are notoriously slow in keeping pace. This guy seems very articulate, and he definitely chose his words carefully.
I do hate this:
I very much dislike the idea of groups restricting the flow of information to like-minded groups.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Woops- as to "Why" I dislike that-
it tends to lead to radicalization of groups.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
I understand that
He doesn’t want people to begin to take up other religions or bad habits from trainers. There are some things that the Catholic church strongly rejects that seem innocent enough. Ie. astrology
halitosis - February 12, 2012 via mobile
True enough
But that doesn’t mean they should reject that you even hear these ideas. I guess what I’m saying is that I dislike the notion of not being given the opportunity to form your own opinion on the matter. Sure, astrology is harmless enough- but I think they still shouldn’t close off that avenue to learn about it, even from a practicing astrologer (do these exist?). A person should be able to make up his own mind on whether or not something is bullshit, not be told “don’t look behind door number 2, it will make you less Christian”
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
That's kind of missing what I'm saying
I was just saying that someone who is a devout Christian can not realize how big a no no a little thing like that is. It’s for someone that has decided on Christianity but doesn’t know certain issues.
halitosis - February 12, 2012 via mobile
Sorry, I guess I am missing it- not sure I understand this post.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
I do not think this guy is saying he does not want Christians hearing other ideas, rather to just stay away from a trainer that really pushes that aspect.
schm1583 - February 12, 2012
...why do you think he would say that?
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
because that is what his quote in this article states…
schm1583 - February 12, 2012
thanks.
I mean, why do you think he would want someone to stay away from a trainer that pushes that aspect?
…because he doesn’t want him exposed to those ideas.
Body Triangle - February 13, 2012
They changed their stance on astrology to be much more cool with it, for the most part.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
But holy bad article title
Christian Yoga: It’s a Stretch?
Have you no shame!
DankNabbot - February 13, 2012
Pentacostals too
in some divisions meditation is seen as witchcraft
anything that could be construed as undermining god’s full involvement in and generation of everything that happens ever is generally rejected
Cunny - February 12, 2012
didnt jesus meditate? like, alot?
gspmademegay - February 12, 2012
Depends on how you interprete it.
Meditation and deep prayer do have similar effects in the brains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_B._Newberg
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
jesus doesn't play by the rules
he’s fuckin jesus sonnnn
Cunny - February 12, 2012
It's really stupid
since Christianity started as an Eastern Mystery Religion (and still is in many places)
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
highly debatable
there certainly was some interplay going on later, and some sects like the gnostics emphasized ‘secret knowledge’ (later branded a heresy), but the only two rituals of the early church were baptism and communion and it wasn’t particularly secretive about it. it may have been forced to be more discreet because of the resulting persecution.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
I wouldn't say it started as a mystery religion
But it fits neatly into the social and cultural context that produced mystery religions, and there are some parallels, especially in the art and architecture of early Christian sanctuaries and Mithras shrines.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
agreed.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
They were secretive
particularly about communion, if you were/are not Christian you were/are not allowed to be present during the ritual. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (and I think the others as well) still has the whole “catachumens depart” still in it because, even those wanting to join the religion weren’t privy to the mystery.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
keep in mind that the liturgy wasn't composed until the fifth century.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
That doesn't matter in the context of this discussion in the slightest
All it means as that they were still keeping the mysteries in the 5th century. They still do it today.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
We don't really get a good sense
Of how Christians actually operated until the fifth century. I don’t think we have a full liturgy before then.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
Well, that sorta flies in the face of all the church history i learned through 13 years of catholic school.
Granted, it is just one brand…but you know…
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
It was the first(ish) brand
so it counts most. You’re right, the Catholic and Orthodox Church still keep the mysteries.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
the only sacraments paul talks about are baptism and communion.
the dogma of the seven sacraments came later.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
so what?
it still has its origins as an eastern Mystery religion.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Well
If you want to get technical, it started as a reform movement within Temple Judaism of the first century, not as a mystery religion.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
That's possible
But again, this is not what I’ve learned- though, again, disclaimer- I went to catholic school.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
It's pretty straightforward
The first Christians were all Jews. One of the big debates within first- and early second-century Christianity was whether non-Jews could become Christians. It’s only a little later – mostly second and into the third century – that the parallels with mystery religions become relevant, since that’s when we start to see evidence for Mithraism, etc.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
Mithraism?
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
A persian Mystery religion
that bares remarkable similarities to early Christianity in it’s sacraments etc.
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
Never heard of it, interesting
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
And to add
Most* Scholarship seems to argue that Mithraism actually borrowed from Early Christianity with regards to Theology and Philosophy while Early Christianity borrowed the Initiatory system from Mithraism.
*Because consensus of Scholarship doesn’t really prove anything.
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
Do you know any books that cover the ties between Christianity and Mithraism?
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
Ya know
I’ve only run into books with indirect references.
Either books dealing with Mithraism that address the topic only in a chapter or two.
Or Christian works addressing the ties here and there nothing to solid.
David Ulansey has written some good articles on Mithraic Theology.
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
Watch the documentary called The god who wasn’t there. Talks about mithraism and the story of osirus which are earily similar to Christianity
Clay Davis - February 12, 2012 via mobile
Relatively new consensus
Is that its Persian roots are a bit overstated, and that it developed within the context of the Roman religious system.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
Possible
The Scholars I read on the subject just emphasize the Persian roots and direct paralels of the Mithras story with Old Persian myths stemming from Zoroastrianism.
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
My limited sense of the topic
Is that most older scholars took Roman authors at their word on that front, while newer ones emphasize the Roman authors’ attempt to invent a plausible origin for Mithraism.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
Sounds about right
Many Romans felt that an “Eastern” religion was more attractive than the typical state religion.
Huh… sounds alot like American Culture today.
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
Yeah
The Romans had a long love affair with imported, “Eastern” religions, Magna Mater/Cybele being the weirdest example.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
Early mystery religion with some similarities to Christianity, particularly popular among the Roman military – one of my friends is working on correlating the geographical distribution of mithraea (Mithraic cult centers) and Roman military installations.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
I'm learning more on an MMA blog than I ever did in my Theology class..
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Dropping knowledge hammers all over the place here
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
So true, I love when topics like this come up here
I can sit back and see the debates of people that have far more knowledge on the subject than me.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
This is a special place
On the internets. Rare to find a lot of smart people with diverse interests willing to talk about them without too much trolling.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
No kidding. What’s your background, if you don’t mind me asking? You seem like a crazy knowledgable dude.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
Haha thanks, I’m working on my PhD in Late Antique history (c. 300-700). I’m kind of an intellectual magpie, though, I tend to get really interested in random topics (right now it’s human evolution) and pursue them pretty rabidly.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
EVOLUTIONS A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gspmademegay - February 12, 2012
Hahaha
Speaking of which, it’s Darwin’s birthday.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
It would take a calculated effort of stupid people to take that away
Of course, the likelyhood of that is very low. There’s more chance of it being pure coincidence.
halitosis - February 12, 2012
*likelihood
That was sorta ironic
halitosis - February 12, 2012
Yeah, said "stupid people" would have make trolling an art form, and keep from getting themselves banned in the process
Sheeple is probably the best at this, but he doesn’t have the backing to make permanent change.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
i thought the debate was
whether the gentiles had to follow jewish customs upon conversion?
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
True
My understanding is that the undertone of the argument is whether non-Jews could be admitted. I’m not an early Christianity specialist, so I could be out of touch with the scholarship here.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
It was more of a social issue at the time than a religious issue, really. In some circumstances it wasn’t kosher for the two to congregate together.
Sorry. Former Theology major at a christian university.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
It’s hard to separate social from religious issues at that time, much different concept of the social role of religious belief in Temple Judaism.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
that's i gist i got as well.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
*the gist
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
yeah, i just assumed conversion was open
as luke, titus, and others were gentiles. i’ll have to look into it.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
its true what your saying
All the early Christians were Jewish and it was originally started as a separate sect of Judaism but that changed over the years obviously.
benten20 - February 12, 2012 via mobile
I am so, so sad
I had to step out and miss this discussion. I have a feeling you and I could have hours of discussions over this stuff.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
I'm sad you missed it
It was a lot of fun, would have been nice to have another in-depth perspective on the issues that came up.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
read my earlier post.
it was certainly influenced by mystery religions (shown by slow development in catholic dogma and different sects that were stamped out), but the claim of mystery religion being its origin point is highly questionable.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
canofworms.jpeg
Hugin - February 12, 2012 via mobile
Diego Sanchez supports this message
Elitex10x - February 12, 2012
All religion is a jo...
Oh wait… Ban hammer you say?
I’ll see myself out of this topic
Ricardo Arguello - February 12, 2012
thank you
dogmatic atheism is one of my least favorite brands of groupthink.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
whys that?
not trying to bait you into anything. Im just curious
Ricardo Arguello - February 12, 2012
because the whole point is supposed to be thinking for yourself
not joining a new cult with none of the redeeming qualities of the religions its replacing.
Also the notion that our limited reasoning abilities and very limited information gives us more than the vaguest understanding of the cosmos is patently absurd. From what I know about quantum mechanics etc, the great spaghetti monster might be an entirely valid cosmology.
See Robert Anton Wilson for a better perspective.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
fair enough
and we’ll just leave that at that.
Ricardo Arguello - February 12, 2012
*high five*
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Rec'd for RAW.
VenusBlue - February 12, 2012
i dont' see a rec
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
And christians are renowned for thinking for themselves. Atheism at least encourages people to think for themselves and think about alternatives. Christianity discourages these very things.
Pahuus - February 12, 2012
I've known plenty of open minded Christians
and plenty of closed minded ones. The people who brand themselves “Atheists” as opposed to “atheists” tend to be imitating the worst aspects of Xtianity.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
It all depends on the context.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I seriously think that is undervaluing the worst that Xtianity has thrown up
I mean, I’m not trolling, but Atheism as a “sect” is a fairly modern phenomenon and if you want to look at what has been done in the name of Xtianity throughout the centuries, there’s certainly a lot to choose from. there’s a difference say, between being an intolerant douchebag and elitist about your atheism and say, using a religious obligation to deny a palestinian homeland due to your beliefs about the rapture, in the hopes of facilitating armageddon. Dominionism among modern evangelicals is a dark phenomenon. And really weird.
I just mean that your comparison was ignoring a lot of history and just not even close to accurate…. And even as I write this I feel uncomfortable talking about religion in public, or in this thread, where despite it being a natural tangent from the post it still seems like it’s ban territory, and I want to be respectful of our hosts. I’ll just bow out.
DankNabbot - February 13, 2012
Wow. Dogmatic atheism IS annoying.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Tip of the iceberg
IRodC - February 12, 2012
How so?
Pahuus - February 12, 2012
Christianity
Doesn’t discourage anything. Particular groups of Christians are another story.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
well, i mean...it definitely discourages a lot of things.
Like not believing in Jesus.
Like not believing in Heaven.
Like submitting to authority, no matter the context.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
sorry, NOT submitting
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
No tapping?
IRodC - February 12, 2012
haha bingo
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Jesus Didn't Tap. Didn't you know this?
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I needed the green power ranger to remind me of it
IRodC - February 12, 2012
White power ranger, now.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I stick too green
White power ranger sounds too racist
IRodC - February 12, 2012
Point I was trying to make
Is that Christianity itself is a broad category of religious experience, and in and of itself is pretty flexible in terms of the practices and beliefs it encompasses. What particular groups of self-identified Christians encourage or discourage is another can of worms. And as far as submitting to authority, early Christians beg to differ.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
It is of no surprise that it stuck.
Christianity has a real low barrier of entry.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
It does now
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
That's the secret of its success
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
Fair enough- but I really don't care about early Christians
Since I don’t have to deal with them today.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
You should.
Gives you a lot of perspective.
Not bashing, just recommending.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
no prob my man
But I must say, I’m thoroughly done with christian history. 13 years of studying it, so I’m pretty much done with that.
I’d like to think I have perspective, but I do stand by my original post that, by necessity, Christianity (no particular sect, just itself) discourages other practices.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
I find we need to make a distinction between faith and religion in these arguments
Faith is what you believe in (which can’t be proven or disproven) and religion is an organized group of people.
For example, you could believe in an omnipotent force in the universe that you can chose to call God (the idea of a being is subjective), but at the same time dismiss the Church as an organization.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
"Faith is what you believe in (which can’t be proven or disproven)"
Not true. Many people’s faiths have declared that the end of the world is a particular date… so far, still here…
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
I should have been more clear
I’m talking about faith in regards to the existence of God. You can’t really disprove or prove the existence of God (particularly because the word God means different things to different people).
I’m not talking about silliness like claiming to know the date the world ends or talking about how Jesus used to ride the dinosaurs.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
Well, some claims of god are falsifiable.
“God moves the sun around the earth” is a directly evidential claim that is false. Of note, the more specific the claim about god, the worse it tends to fair, especially if it’s something we can test. If it remains vague, then it risks becoming irrelevant. A purely abstract metaphysical god that never interacts with us isn’t much use, is it?
That is the crux for me – no concept of god thus far allows us to use its existence to further any other knowledge, which is a good criterion for truth.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
That's a pretty good point
Let me make it clear that I don’t disagree with you on any of these things. I’m just playing (funny enough) Devil’s advocate.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
[faith fist bump]
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Faith bros
4lyfe.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
It depends on how you define dogmatic atheism.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
yes
I am not particularly religious and when I was in high school I was pretty aggressive about it. But as I went to college, I developed a healthy respect for any and all religious belief systems and the only group of people I couldn’t stand were atheists because they were the most “in your face” about their beliefs of any group.
T.P. Grant - February 12, 2012
It depends on the kind of "atheists" groups you find.
You have to understand that they are a very, very new group, comparatively speaking. And unlike religion, it has no in-built infrastructure, and a bunch of them are people who just saw life differently and dumped their faith on the supernatural with a vengeance.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I'm all for them being loud and proud
I just don’t want to have to hear it.
Also never forget the communists, Nazis and Ayn Randroids are all brands of atheism. I believe some martyred hippy once said something about “by their fruits shall ye know them.”
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
wait wait wait...
Nazis were far from atheists.
Soviet Communism was atheist, but communism in and of itself doesn’t implicate atheism
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
the Nazis cut deals with the church
and let the churches stay in power but they were primarily atheists (with some dabbling in the occult) who swiped pagan imagry willy-nilly.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Nazis were occultists
Twisting the words of the Bible to create a new “Positive Christianity” which was little but their Aryan occultic ideas wrapped in a Christian label.
Pure Communism doesn’t necessitate any Religious beliefs, even the Early Christians lived in this manner. But the Communism which has had the most influence in the world is the brainchild of Marxism which is, by it’s very nature, an atheistic system.
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
and Marxism
is the definitive example of an attempt to dismiss religion that ended up becoming a virulent false religion.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Indeed
All you have to do is look at the tombs of Lenin and Stalin or the huge parades in Mao’s China to see the new religion of Hero Worship that developed to replace the old faiths.
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
Except Marx didn't dismiss religion at all.
He’s very clear on the subject.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Marx isn't representative of Marxism
any more than Jesus is representative of Christianity.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
All fair points!
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Hahaha
“Some martyred hippy”
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
I hate to disagree there.
But you are using Communism in a context it doesn’t belong in.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Marx's ideals were entirely atheist
He wanted to abolish all religion. Just because communism is recognized as a form of economicsystem that doesn’t mean it didn’t have other points to reach.
halitosis - February 12, 2012
he was a great great economist
unfortunately he was a shitty shitty prophet.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Great economist in an ideal world
His form of communism was certainly far less extreme, but it would likely crash and burn.
But I don’t want to get into that now.
halitosis - February 12, 2012
Marx was a great critical economist, but his prescriptive theories left a lot to be desired. I find that’s always been the problem with marxist economic thought, they make very pertinent critiques of more mainstream systems and ideas, but then fail to propose effective alternative systems or models
jammin.. - February 12, 2012
Bagdhad, Belgrade, Beirut, Bombay, Belfast, Bethlehem
And the history of these cities tell a great story about religion
miked612 - February 13, 2012
Athieism
was around in Ancient Greece.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
I’m glad you developed that respect as I have been told by certain individuals who are atheist that I am weak person for being a Christian. I also think it ignorant when these same people say that people of religion use God as a crutch. While some Christians do use God as a crutch, others don’t. I found it a bit ridiculous though because atheist or any person in general can use things like drugs or alcohol as a crutch in their lives, for example.
chrisbboy82 - February 12, 2012
Best comment I've ever read, this coming from a Christian.
Thank you Nate.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
hit the rec button
green that shit or STFU
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Oh trust me, I rec'd it.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
Did you just suggest Wilson?
Rec.
I can no longer blame you for anything.
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
Refusal to blame everything on Kid Nate is a bannable offense. I suggest you reconsider your position.
Richard Wade - February 13, 2012
I just take the stance that I don't know
And anyone claiming to know the answers for a fact is lying. Whether you are a hollywood atheist or the Pope.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
So which way do you lean? It's possible to have a preference without being certian.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Personally I'm an atheist
But I’m fully aware that I don’t know whether there is a God or not. I’m not stupid enough to think I can prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent being.
To be quite honest, I think the concept that a person can comprehend God is a bit odd. We as humans have trouble comprehending each other, and the world we live in (can anyone truly comprehend how massive the universe is for example?). Even though I don’t believe in God, i think if God did exist it would be a bit out of my realm of comprehension.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
That's agnostic (or weak) atheism. I largely agree with your stance.
See my chart lower down.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Ah, I see
You learn something new every day.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
A day without learning is a day wasted.
Too much interesting stuff out there to be bored.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Agreed
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
That's agnostic athiesm
which, I think, is the most honest stance someone can have on the subject.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
Well thank you
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
And one of my favorites. But this is (as established) not the place
Brent Brookhouse - February 12, 2012
This was a joke, by the way. Before anyone gets upset.
Brent Brookhouse - February 12, 2012
Thank you, and I couldn't agree more.
It especially drives me nuts that atheism is the “cool” choice for quasi-intellectual types. I always respect peoples’ convictions – as long as they came to them independently rather than being told what to think.
Andy Davis - February 12, 2012
atheism is my default setting
always has been. but once idiots started capitalizing “Reason” and repeating the same talking points I started to get sick.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
SCIENCE!
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Unfortunately a lot of atheists adopt the same rigid intolerance that they like to denounce in religious people. This sort of debate seems to bring out the worst in people though
jammin.. - February 12, 2012
This
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Seconded.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
pretty much this
My first post was a joke btw. i dont care what anyone else believes in
Ricardo Arguello - February 12, 2012
this
T.P. Grant - February 12, 2012
I’m an atheist, but personally I find it understandable to believe in God.
My anger comes with people who are self righteous and want to tell other people how to live. I truly believe that as long as you’re not hurting other people, you should live your life as you like.
I’m not bothered by faith, I’m bothered by religious institutions spreading hate and misinformation.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
this
Cunny - February 12, 2012
my feelings exactly
I am atheist not because I have the answer but because I believe no one does. Therefore I cannot possibly argue with someone else’s beliefs. My lack of belief led me down the path of live and let live not prosecute and judge
troyd - February 12, 2012 via mobile
This sums my thoughts on the subject exactly.
Sweet Scientist - February 12, 2012
I think technically you would be closer to agnosticism then
jammin.. - February 12, 2012
True.
Sweet Scientist - February 12, 2012
This:
Also read here and here.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Were does Sartre fall?
Maybe a proof exists and maybe it doesn’t but disproving the the existence of god doesn’t matter either way.
pdl - February 12, 2012
He personally was an atheist, though if he really felt it didn't matter, he'd be an "apatheist".
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Don't make me find Existentialism is a Humanism on my bookshelf.
The existence of god doesn’t matter because freedom is existence and existence precedes essence. With an objective codification of morality, freedom does not exist which undermines the very idea of humanity.
/French existentialism’d
pdl - February 12, 2012
Well...
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Thanks for saving my trip to the bookshelf, that's the quote I wanted.
If god exists or not it makes no difference. Sartre brings it to a very personal level in his reasoning. Camus says that there’s enough evidence to show that if there is a god then he’s as cold and uncaring as a godless universe.
pdl - February 12, 2012
Wikiquote, bitch.
So we’re both right – he was an atheist, but said it didn’t matter.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
BE STYLE FISTBUMP FOR PHILOSOPHY!
pdl - February 12, 2012
I always found this bit odd
given the importance of Kierkegaard in existentialist philosophy.
Avap - February 13, 2012
thanks for this
rec’d
Cunny - February 12, 2012
Hmm...
Wouldn’t “Purple” Actually be “Deist”?
Decado - February 12, 2012
Deisim is that a god made the univere & natural law, but then stepped away and no longer intervenes (or possibly cares).
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Thanks.
The way I look at it, I don’t know if there’s a Big Man up there. But if there is I think living my life in what I’d consider a moral way should be enough to not piss him off. Besides I wouldn’t want to piss off those Belgian monks, I like their beer too damn much.
More seriously the level of debate on this subject is easily the best I’ve seen on the internet. Very interesting stuff to read without name calling, I’m not knowledgeable enough on the subject to really contribute too much but I’ve enjoyed reading it.
Sweet Scientist - February 12, 2012
If you want more, email me.
I find religion fascinating and I have a lot of stuff I can offer you. Easier to do it in email than the comments.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Repeating the same talking points?
You called the Nazi’s atheists
miked612 - February 13, 2012
Mark Driscoll...not Mark Hill
I read his whole article when it came out. As a Christian I agreed for the most part. You got his name wrong though :)
MMA is a sport. If we encourage baseball, basketball, football, etc. to teach dedication and other disciplines then MMA should be an option too. My brother is a pro fighter and Christian. He’s not a barbarian. He’s an athlete and loves to compete.
jrr091784 - February 12, 2012 via mobile
shit
thanks!
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
No problem! I was a big fan of Driscoll’s until he wrote his new book about marriage. Too graphic for my taste but he is fairly respected in normal evangelical circles. I’m a Southern Baptist Youth Pastor but most preachers I know support his views for the most part.
jrr091784 - February 12, 2012 via mobile
i agree for the most part
but sometimes he can be frustrating with his biblical interpretation. For example when he says the man must be the one who earns the money in a marriage because “a man who does not provide for his family is worse than a non believer.”
Obviously thats not what the scripture is getting at, its speaking on work ethic and providing in general.
But in general i agree with him and i like his view on MMA.
bluejitz - February 12, 2012
is this the guy who wrote "love wins?"
i haven’t read it, but i heard complaints of it espousing universalism.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
No, that is Rob Bell.
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
okay, gotcha.
is he affiliated with mars hill as well maybe? can’t see why i confused the two.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Not that I am aware of. I think Mark Driscol is one of the pastors who has spoken out about Love Wins, which may be why you associate the two of them.
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
thanks
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
I am glad to be able to add something to a conversation here.
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
oh, i see why.
just wiki’ed rob bell. he’s the founder of a separate, unaffiliated mars hill in michigan.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
That makes sense. I will keep that in mind. Thank you.
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
different mars hill
Grandville Michigan
cletusvandam - February 12, 2012 via iPhone app
Three sentences insinuate universalism
The rest is a very solid read on the mission of Jesus.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
Well, MMA is one of those sports that the old ladies in the church get mad about, mostly because they see it, and don’t understand it. Granted, I’m using “old ladies” as a turn of phrase, because it essentially is church slang for people ages 40 and up who think the Bible is anti anything not from their years.
I don’t agree with a lot of things that Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill’s staff has done over the past few years, but I think he’s spot on. Speaking as another Christian, I think that you can practice a martial art without even coming close to any sort of Eastern religious ideal, so I think his comparison to Yoga is a bit flawed.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
I think the “old ladies” out there are non religious as well… I also think there are some gyms that add in some of the spirituality into the training and its not that flawed to recommend for Christians to stay away from those ones. As a Christian it wouldn’t bother me to be at a gym like that though.
schm1583 - February 12, 2012
For the historically-minded
This has some definite parallels in late 19th-early 20th century “muscular Christianity”, especially the idea that exercise is part and parcel of a Christian lifestyle.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
oh dear.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
i refute my own "oh dear."
this has proven to be a good time utterly lacking of ignorance and malignancy.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Don't underestimate your fellow BElitists
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
lol ur dumb
Derek Suboticki - February 12, 2012
shut your stupid face, subo!
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Always remember
Elitex10x - February 12, 2012
The benefits of physical culture benefits everyone
A lot of people have an energy that isn’t vented effectively or healthily, and sport is a great way to do it. MMA is just one approach to this.
KJ Gould - February 12, 2012
Elitex10x - February 12, 2012
What does Jesus think of this
Garbanzo - February 12, 2012
Like everyone else
Jesus thinks Penn is awesome and while Hughes has asshole tendencies he was still a great fighter.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Jesus loves Matt Hughes. Jesus probably didn’t love Hughes completely misinterpreting the book of Esther.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
I don't think I get the joke here...
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
haha
When did this happen? What did he say?
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
You guys need to watch Team Serra vs Team Hughes. It’s bad.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Oh was this from his team bible studies?
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
A-yup.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
I mostly just rolled my entire face during that segment
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
I think it is always hard thing for ppl of faith. You want to spread your beliefs (since you think your beliefs are right and thus want others to be right) but it is hard to spread your belief system without coming off as pushy… So yeah Hughes comes off as pushing his beliefs on others, but it is do to good intentions
schm1583 - February 12, 2012
Time and place, IMO
Setting up a voluntary bible study for his team isn’t a bad idea at all. Doing it during scheduled training hours isn’t a good idea at all.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Oh geez
Was it when he made his team read Bible verses?
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
hughes: i am esther
everyone: uh, what?
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Can someone explain to me what a Mega Church is? I'm Jewish and we don't have Mega Churches
Matthew Roth - February 12, 2012
they're suburban congregations
that draw 1,000s of worshipers for any given service. often featuring arena rock type entertainment setups.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Are they for a specific denomination?
Matthew Roth - February 12, 2012
I think any protestant creed
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
No
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Usually non-denominational.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
They're non-denominational
which means they generally fit under the Protestant umbrella, but that’s a huge umbrella.
Andy Davis - February 12, 2012
They attract evangelical protestants.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
This
Loooong history of crazy.
DankNabbot - February 13, 2012
As far as I understand it, Mega Churches are places that do stuff like this:
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Fun story, that Jesus got struck by lightening
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Seriously?
Divine retribution’s a bitch.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
Yup, about a year and a half ago
Apparently the statue was made of some sort of styrofoam substance over a steel frame. It was mostly a matter of time.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
That's too funny for words
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
The sign for the Hustler Store on the other side of the interstate? Still standing...
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
It is no longer there. They have not rebuilt it yet. I pass it every time I head south to visit family. Just passed it last weekend.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
I live less than 5 miles away from it
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Well, where it used to be
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
I am just inside Michigan. I always felt it was a little over the top, and that the money it took to build such a work(?) could have perhaps been better served.
Not knocking the church, denomination, or anything like that. It’s not like religions haven’t been building elaborate statues and such for thousands of years, I just found it a little goofy maybe?
wmuk - February 12, 2012
It's basically been the butt of many jokes in the area ince it was erected. Same with Solid Rock, but there's no need to go in to that here.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Agreed.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
I used to work at a catholic retirement community
The cross on the roof got blasted in half by lightning. Had the old folks in an uproar.
Violent Newt - February 12, 2012
Big Butter Jesus!!!!!!!!!!
slimbeam - February 12, 2012
Relatively recent term
To describe the very large, usually non-denominational congregations that have sprung up in the evangelical community over the last thirty or so years. They tend to be very well funded and make use of TV, radio, and the internet.
Patrick Wyman - February 12, 2012
Lots of non demoninational churches but plenty that still follow one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_Protestant_churches_in_the_USA
Sojo - February 12, 2012
In general,
it’s just a huge church with a congregation in the thousands. They usually spawn satellite churches that, instead of having their own preacher/reverend/pastor, watch the main church’s services via video screen. They’re usually not physically set up like a traditional church, either; they tend to be more like an arena or concert.
Andy Davis - February 12, 2012
Is BE not on pace for bans this month or something?
I see no good discussion coming from such a polarizing topic as religion.
A lot of I agrees and mocking pics anyone? ;)
wmuk - February 12, 2012
We’ve had over 50 comments so far without anyone crossing any sort of line. So…I think we’ll be okay
Brent Brookhouse - February 12, 2012
Typically religion isn't the most controversial thing here at BE
Mostly everyone stays pretty respectful
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Religion ain't got shit
On Fedor, weed and fighter pay.
VenusBlue - February 12, 2012
This is so true
Religion we can all generally speak of calmly and with reason. But somebody calls Fedor the GOAT and people lose their shit. It’s beautiful really.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Also nick diaz. the banhammer was strong in those threads
jammin.. - February 12, 2012
If anything
It tends to be in a live thread
halitosis - February 12, 2012 via mobile
Mostly because it tends to be headed off at the pass. But I would agree that BE’ers are pretty respectful in general, mostly joking, and I would attribute that to the high-level of intellect (myself not included) and the strength of the moderators.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
Probably all of the above
But I’ve seen different religious conversations pop up several times and ver rarely does it even come close to getting heated.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Perhaps I am overly-sensitive due to a previous experience with a Mr. Fagan that occurred during a live thread that was relentlessly bashing an openly Christian fighter and I simply decided to take an opposing position for the sake of balance.
It was not that I supported one side over another, it was just that I was under the belief that religion and politics were to be kept clear of BE and the onslaught of anti-Chrisitian sentiment regarding this fighter seemed to contradict that. It ended in the whole comment and discussion quickly being removed and that was that. I have never broached the subject since.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
When was this?
I seriously missed some cool-ass bannings, then.
.
.
.
I always tend to miss those…
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I need to go back and check the events to see which it was.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
I do think that it was a Ben Henderson fight if memory serves me correctly, which is usually doesn’t. I blame age.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
*it
wmuk - February 12, 2012
Fagan's intolerance of religion
and the epic post he wrote slamming the Orthodox Christian faith — without warning me or the other editors — are a big part of why he’s gone.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Just to give the other side of that piece
As a devout Orthodox Christian, I thought that piece was hilarious.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
sure
it just didn’t belong on BE.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
sure it did
There are TONS of posts that are pointless to BE.
His would have fit in with the rest of them.
danielao - February 12, 2012
nope
it had NOTHING to do with MMA. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
I think it is essential to have your beliefs and yet also maintain an open mind in order to grow and refine those beliefs. Being able to laugh at something humorous and not take everything so seriously or as a personal attack is not the norm, kudos good sir.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
I thought the piece was funny, but I also felt frustrated and sad that he’s so vehemently intolerant. Mike seems like a damned intelligent dude.
castleeb - February 12, 2012
often a trait of the vehemently intolerant
some start to wonder how anyone with a brain couldn’t agree with whatever their view may be
and start to associate those who disagree with unintelligence
Cunny - February 12, 2012
that sucks
big matt - February 12, 2012
My jaw hit the floor that morning when I read his article
I thought it showed he didn’t think much of BE, to post something like that, or he just didn’t give a fuck and thought he should be able to say whatever he wanted to say, using whatever platforms he had available to himself.
The Lethal Haze - February 12, 2012
yeah
he refused to see how it didn’t help BE to alienate a major world religion and a top fighter.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
I can't recall the article in question,
who was the Orthodox fighter?
Andy Davis - February 12, 2012
Fedor.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
that was pretty much the take away I had
and his behavior subsequently confirmed that.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
I remember him bashing a fighter over his Islamic practices regarding fighting & training during Ramadan.
When the issues wasn’t that he was religious, but he only cited it when convenient – he had fought during the holy month before, but was using it to stall on contract negotiations, I believe.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
I missed that post. Is that why he got boosted off BE?
Robust23 - February 12, 2012
it was part of it
but honestly most of it had to do with disagreements over contracts.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
As Nate alluded to, Fagan was well known from ridiculing religion and the religious
But he was definitely the exception rather than the rule.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
I liked Fagan. He was lulz.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Oh me too
But his aggressive atheism could be a bit much
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Yeah. But so it goes.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
It kind of seemed like he was doing a really bad Christopher Hitchens impersonation.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
he's the one who I first noticed capitalizing "Reason"
which is anything but rational. science is about doubt and critical thinking not something to turn into an idol.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Uh...I disagree there.
Science is Rational within the model of reason it employs, which is derived from observations of the natural world. It is nothing but logic strung together with cool-ass symbols b/c it uses math as its tool.
It is amazing that something stemming solely from the human mind can explain the universe, and predict shit, to the scale that science does. It it the single greatest human achievement. Ever.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
AMEN!
shit.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Yeah, it is nuts.
If mankind were to go extinct tomorrow at least, hey, we did SCIENCE.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
but the catch
is that if we go extinct tomorrow it’s 90% likely its going to be because of science. human beings with atomic bombs are kind of like monkeys with machine guns.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Adorable and frightening?
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
I think he means
awesome, but dangerous
IRodC - February 12, 2012
That makes more sense
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
halitosis - February 12, 2012
Garbanzo - February 12, 2012
THIAGO!
gspmademegay - February 12, 2012
DING DING DING
WE HAVE A WINNER!
Garbanzo - February 12, 2012
Disagree.
Science is a process. If we misuse the fruits of that process, that isn’t science’s fault, but ours. “Guided missiles, misguided men” (MLKjr)
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
its pretty cool
but the latest research indicates that most scientific discoveries were intuited first then explained later by reason. So I have to stick to intuition as our greatest superpower. Its the difference between creating great art and creating really good criticism of art.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
but what if intuition is just our mind AUTOMATICALLY using logic
Like, maaan, its like, your mind takes in bits and pieces maaaan, and makes inferences that you don’t even know are logical, maaaan.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
intuition works too fast
reason is awesome though and is as close as we get to proving we know things.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
I know, I'm just messing
Or am I? I don’t even know anymore.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
That is a misunderstanding of the scientific method, I think.
The scientific method requires that we intuitively gauge the environment, and then come around with theories that not only satisfy the observations but also that they may be predictive.
Hence why right now, we are bout to dump the notion that the standard model is the be-all end-all tool to explain elemental particles, and all b/c we can’t find the damn Higgs Boson so far.
Logic, and hence intuition, only takes you so far and then you need experimental proof.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
The scientific method is much messier in practice..
..is what I take Kid Nate to be saying, which jives with research on scientific practice from folks like Latour and Pickering. It’s often a “mangle” of rigorous method, intuition, luck and doing the best you can do.
C.S. Peirce, one of the great early american statisticians, articulated this best when he talked about abduction in the scientific method. I
Sabate - February 12, 2012
But intuition is instinct that we have.
Science is something that we do. It’s something that we built ourselves.
I don’t see how what you just wrote is even contradictory to what I wrote, I’m sorry.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
it's not. It's an equivocation of "Science" and the "Scientific MEthod"
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
It's not contradictory.
The point I’m making is often the components of scientific practice outside hypothesis generation – data collection, data analysis, etc. – proceed from guesswork, argumentation and making do.
I’m not arguing the scientific method is invalid – just that its messier when its articulated in practice.
Sabate - February 12, 2012
I agree in that.
But I dunno what is it that I said that made you think I was not.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
i'd be interested in reading about this
could you point me anywhere in particular, nate?
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
start with Kant
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
You mean "start with Copleston's book on Kant".
Second-worst writer in philosophy (fuck you, Hegel).
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
i must have missed something
kant is the latest research?
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Cognitive biases tend to fuck with that intuition, though.
Doesn’t it say something that intuition doesn’t count for much until it’s either reasoned out or empirically tested?
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
So science proves that science was based off intuition?
And where did you read that. I’d like to see the article. I’d like to see how they distinguish between every instance of intuition vs observation.
All I can say is the science that’s allowing people to live decades longer than we would have 50 yrs ago isn’t based on intuition.
Robust23 - February 12, 2012
A little off.
Science is great!
But all science isn’t entirely “derived from observations of the natural world” (e.g. theoretical physics) or proceed entirely from logical inductive or deductive processes (Darwin, for example).
I’ll agree with Kid Nate (and William James) on this one.
Sabate - February 12, 2012
Elaborate, if you will.
As I understand it, the scientific method is pretty cut and dry.
You observe stuff, and then try to explain it by coming up with a theoretical framework and then, if possible, experimental stuff that proves the theory within acceptable error parameters, or disproves it altogether.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
see David Deutsch
the inventor of quantum computing. He destroys inductivism utterly in his new book.
Hume has never been refuted and he broke the chain connecting cause and effect a long time ago.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
instantly checking this out
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Excuse me, but I don't have that much time to go and look for all of his tenets.
Just give me the cliff notes of your argument.
As a matter of fact, I can discuss quantum physics because I did my thesis on that stuff, so I’d greatly appreciate it.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I just read a bit, and the guy is doing the same thing everyone does which is making postulates.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Any thoughts on Bayesian practices?
They claim to have gotten around inductive issues, I believe (I could be wrong, as I’m still trying to sort out the math there).
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
wait, what?
All of theoretical physics is hypotheses that we don’t yet have the means of testing. That’s why its “theoretical”- once we have the ability (if we ever do) to test it, that would complete the scientific method. Science is entirely derived from observations of the natural world. And not sure about the Darwin example?
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Not exactly.
“Theoretical” basically means that they are playing around with mathematical theories to explain some kind of phenomena.
If it sticks, then “Yay!,” if not “Bummer.”
Enstein’s relativity was pure theoretical work.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
And these theories have a degree of validity...
even though they don’t stem directly from observation.
Sabate - February 12, 2012
Which is when we have a problem.
Validity is not the same as not being self-contradictory.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I'm afraid I'm not understanding you here.
Is your argument is that all non-empirical scientific research is of equal value as long as it isn’t self-contradictory?
Sabate - February 12, 2012
Perhaps we are using different definitions of validity?
Courtesy of wikipedia, here’s mine:
Validity is not a correct/incorrect binary state, but the degree to which we can posit something is correct.
Sabate - February 12, 2012
What I'm saying is that theories that may look good on paper, are not necessarily valid.
The only way to know whether or not non self-contradictory theories are valid is to test them.
Even a seemingly valid theory may come off by the seams at some points b/c it fails to explain or predict stuff.
What I’m getting at is that pure theoretical leg work (thinking about stuff using logic) can only take you so far.
For example Newtonian mechanics, the theory is valid within the framework it was postulated in, it predicted and explained existing phenomena to a T, but when you start considering relativistic effects it becomes invalid—and people freaked the fuck out back then, b/c Newton was a real G to them, but all of a sudden his shit was worth the same as a bag of dicks b/c it just didn’t work.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Absolutely.
But we don’t disqualify theoretical physics from being scientific because it doesn’t have the empirical tools at its disposal. And its far from just hypothesis proposition – it has its own very rigorous methods of assessing validity that aren’t grounded in empirical observation.
I bring up Darwin because he generated an incredibly complex and large theory for explaining biological phenomena with comparatively little empirical evidence. It turned out to be incredibly fruitful as a scientific theory, but a lot of Darwin’s initial work was a mix of small amounts of data, guesswork, synthesis and sheer argumentation.
Ultimately empirical observation assigns validity in both these scientific paradigms, but often this empirical validation takes place a century later when the tools are available.
Sabate - February 12, 2012
I think we may have a disagreement.
Theoretical physics does not exist on its own bubble. What they find, while theoretically sound, may well end up being hogwash is the experimentalists don’t confirm it.
Valid does not equal true. It only means that the theory is not self-contradictory.
I’m not dissing theoretical physics, my dad is one, and I may well end up being one too, but that doesn’t mean that what we do is “correct” unless confirmed, because our parameters of correctness are not boud to anything other than what nature makes available for us to confirm.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Otherwise M-Theory would be the shit.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
No argument here.
There are absolutely degrees of validity, and I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. And real, observed data is the best evidence at assessing validity.
Here’s my point:
—Thorough empirical observation is often unavailable in scientific practice because we do not yet have the tools or instruments necessary to gather complete data. In the absence of those tools, science assesses the rigor of postulates through a field-specific “mangle of practice” that combines specific modes of hypothesis generation, evidence assessment and argumentation. Often these field-specific methods do not follow procedures that are in literal accordance with the scientific method.
Sabate - February 12, 2012
Yes.
But those are kind of ‘waiting in the wings’ seeing if they get to be true or not. And until they can be proven to be, they’ll have to wait not knowing whether they are or not.
That’s kinda where we are now with the Higgs Boson, the graviton, M-Theory, and all those crazy things I’m hoping to be true but we just can’t say b/c we have no way of testing them.
I mean, we built the most amazing fucking machine on the planet (LHC) just to see whether or not the Higgs is real shit, that alone means that those conjectures are important, but they were not built to celebrate them but to test them.
But yes, there’s stuff that we take to be true just because, for example the concept of thermodynamic ensemble, or the modern wave function interpretation in quantum physics (without it, we cannot even come up with the notion of the many world interpretation or whatever).
Science is a funny thing, but it is the best we have.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I don't think we're substantively disagreeing here.
I absolutely agree that things have to be observed/tested/measured to have high degrees of validity.
I disagree that all theories are of equivalent validity – all just “waiting in the wings” – until they’re testing if that’s what you’re arguing.
They spent billions of dollars to build the LHC to test for Higgs-Boson because it was judged to be the stronger model. They’re not building a huge apparatus to test for the particles described in Higsless models because that’s judged to be a weaker model.
Sabate - February 12, 2012
I just wanted to add one last bit.
But we’l leave it for later ‘cause you can’t reply timely and are busy. And so am I (damn).
Great luck at work, buddy.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
"I've only proven that it works, I haven't tested it."
Donald Knuth
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Ok it's been fun debating/discussing this.
But I have to get back to work. Cheers!
Sabate - February 12, 2012
It’s been awesome fun reading this.
From Theology to Quantum Physics :)
krste - February 13, 2012
Heh.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
i miss fagan.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Agreed, I think the pretty clear warning did the trick.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
I'm here for the outrage.
I love that pieces like what he wrote take a cool approach to MMA and then switch to “don’t do yoga and if you do it, don’t call it yoga”
If it gets more people into MMA I’m all for it.
IRodC - February 12, 2012
This was actually quite funny. I was like “Whoa, old dude, did you really say that?” But some folk are old school like that.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Old people are the most fun people
When they are not racists or crazy
IRodC - February 12, 2012
Actually
that’s when they are the most fun
Garbanzo - February 12, 2012
Crazy, racist old people can be fun.
Richard Wade - February 13, 2012
good for him.
it gets in my craw when people say mma is inherently un-christian. the christian says it to judge while the non-christian says it to paint the christian as a hypocrite.
mma =/= street-fight.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
The problem with Mark...
And other pastors like him is they’ve lately been on a streak of trying to tell men to man up (and thus using MMA as an example of it) and yet there is no calling women into account for their behavior as well. Normally I’d be ready to say good things about a pastor who doesn’t call MMA a bloodsport or what have you but unfortunately it’s wrapped up in a teaching that I find ignorant. The red pill was a bitter pill to swallow but it opened my eyes to the ignorance of the “Man-Up” phenomenon.
Sojo - February 12, 2012
Could someone explain this megachurch thing to an Englishman?
Again being English I don’t really get the religion and sport mixing thing as it’s not really done over here (with the expection of Javier Hernandez pre-match prayers in the center circle).
However I appreciate this guy being informed sdn hope it peeks peoples interest in the sport.
MattParker117 - February 12, 2012
see above in the comments
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Thanks
MattParker117 - February 12, 2012
There's some good stuff on what a megachurch is above.
As to mixing church and sports, that’s not really the issue. I have no idea what it’s like in England, but people in the evangelical movement in America take their faith very, very seriously, and a big part of it is applying your religious convictions to every part of your life. This is simplistic, but a lot of people will not watch violent/sexual movies, wear only very conservative clothing, etc. They are trying to examine every facet of their life through their values, and of course the leaders of these religious groups try to guide their congregations on these issues.
Andy Davis - February 12, 2012
Kinda like Sharia, huh?
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Eh, sort of.
To my understanding, Sharia is very specific on what you can/can’t do, but these people are trying to extrapolate the spirit of the teachings of Jesus into the minutiae of their lives.
Andy Davis - February 12, 2012
Well, I can’t say that I support his stance on yoga and eastern arts, but more groups coming out in favour of MMA can’t be a bad thing
jammin.. - February 12, 2012
I agree with you there
I don’t really know how influential this guy, is but the exposure can’t be bad for the sport.
I’m just trying to ignore the xenophobic nature of the rest of his comments.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
He is widely regarded as a giant in Christian theology. He may be restricted to a Christian fame, but I think he is fairly influential in the American Christian church.
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
Good to know. So this could be seen as fairly large exposure in that community?
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
I would think him supporting in would bring a lot of positive exposure within the church.
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
OT, but are you also a gamblin' man?
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
No, I have tried and failed many a time.
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
Hahaha
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
That sucks
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
there are a lot of religious nutbags. He comes across as just a guy who takes his stuff very seriously and that is it.
Not a nutbag imho.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
It's not that
It’s just, the idea that we are putting this guy up there with Origen, Aquinus or even C.S. Lewis really bothers me.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
FFS.... did I just become a religion hipster?
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
HA!
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Uh...I don't think we are...
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Okay
but when I read, “Giant in Christian theology” that’s where my mind jumps.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
Maybe a domestic giant?
A big fish in a small pond? i dunno, man. i certainly don’t think of him as a big deal.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I don’t think anyone from Mars Hill really should be included in the number of Lewis or Bonhoeffer.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
I do not think people are equating him to that list by any means, but he is highly regarded as a modern name in Christian theology. Sorry for the confusion.
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
Gotcha
sorry for the assumption!
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
I definitely understand where you are coming from.
Ramblin'man - February 12, 2012
No he isn't.
Modern day “giants” are Plantinga & WLC, for example. Driscoll doesn’t do theology.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
He’s very well known and very controversial, as he’s part of the “emerging” church movement.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
How is he "controversial"?
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Well, there’s his book on sex…….
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Wowza....I don't need to read that
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Just in the sense he doesn’t have completely traditional doctrine. I haven’t read any of his books in their entirety, so I can’t give you a list like I could for say… Rob Bell or Erwin McManus. But he definitely is cutting edge, and is known for swearing during sermons haha. Which I’m cool with personally.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM4hp9kz_A4
IRodC - February 12, 2012
Hahahahahaha
Maybe more like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaeAkJO0w8
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
I gotcha
Curse words are more based off classism than any thing else. Good for him.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Yeah.
It’s basically just another word to me. I think being super sexually inappropriate or using the Lord’s name in vain is wrong, definitely things I try to avoid, but Western “profanity” isn’t a big deal to me.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
Maybe I’m in the minority, but I find the post fight “Thank you Jesus for..uh..allowing me to do harm to my opponent and..win” absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary. Whatever your faith is, you should leave it out of the cage. Just my 2 cents though
savik - February 12, 2012
I disagree
I don’t mind if a fighter is very religious and passionate about it. Most likely that passion is what led him to be successful in the first place.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
I can understand a “thanks for keeping my opponent and myself safe” type of thing, but no need to push it passed that.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
Unless of course they are asked or it is during an outside of the ring interview. Just my opinion.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
We have to understand their context.
While outwardly contradictory, I think they only see it as “I am happy I was granted this gifts,” and want to share their good fortunes with their audience, along with whatever proselytizing message they may have, but I don’t feel they are trying to push it down anyone’s throats that much, to be honest.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
*granted these gifts*
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I don't see anything wrong with it
People who try and force religon annoy me, but simply speaking of your faith and thanking god isn’t a big deal. Its their post fight speech anyway, they can say whatever they want. I sort of get sick of the idea that atheletes are somehow supposed to please eveybody with what they say.
attgnp - February 12, 2012
True.
But once their words leave their mouths, whatever they say is fair game. They don’t live in a bubble, you know, and people can’t have it both ways—it is not okay to say “It is just my opinion” when you are blasting it in a public forum.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
true…I think the biggest thing about people complaining about it that bothers me is that people just bitch about everything these days. Almost anything somebody says will result in somebody saying they are offended by it. Basically people just need to get over themselves and deal with it.
attgnp - February 12, 2012
Seems logical to me.
We are in an era of push-back, right now. Everything, cultural wise, is starting to, somehow, come together via the standing mass communications infrastructures so that, now, folk are suddenly having to become defensive of their own.
Those with particular close affiliations to the ‘unadulterated’ forms of whatever they happen to belong to are feeling this more and more as time ticks on. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride going forward. That we are seeing this in MMA does not surprise me in the slightest.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
BOOM! nice.
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
"I'd like to thank God for this victory"
As if God gives two shits about a cage fight. Its not open heart surgery for fucks sake.
RandyCouture'sDivorceLawyer - February 12, 2012
Your comment is bad and you should feel bad.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
The god of the bible does give two shits about stuff like that.
It is in the bible.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Speaking of what's in the bible:
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Elitex10x - February 12, 2012
Oh, GLORY to the RAPTOR.
For he went EXTINCT because of our SINS.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
:/
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
In high school, we used to ask our drunk teacher (also a priest)
who would win in an arm-wrestling contest: Jesus or Hercules?
“HERCULES ISNT REAL”
We know father, but just pretend he is.
“Oh…well then…probably Jesus”
And the dinosaurs…why did they die out then?
“THEY WERE SINNERS!”
…even the long-necks?
“WHAT THE HELL IS A LONG-NECK”
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
Nice!!
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
awesome.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Haha, not the long-necks!!!
Good laugh.
NickRingp4pGOAT - February 13, 2012
Yay!
I’ve never liked what you contribute to discussions, now I have grounds to flag you!
halitosis - February 12, 2012
My thoughts exactly
Although it’s not the first time he’s posted something flag-worthy.
wonderfulspam - February 12, 2012
Pointless post.
Pahuus - February 12, 2012
I agree
What you just said was pointless.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
It is NOT pointless.
Especially when a bunch of practitioners in the community are people who outwardly believe in that stuff and take it very seriously. Also, it is a small window to a different point of view about the sport.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
aaaah, buhbye
Body Triangle - February 12, 2012
the point of the post is that a major religious leader is addressing MMA in a positive way
that impacts the sport and reflects its growing social acceptability. that’s relevant.
oh and you’re banned.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
Took you long enough Nate
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Thank you.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
Yes! I knew I was going to see one of these today!
castleeb - February 12, 2012
...
Sugel Mendoza - February 12, 2012
am i the only one whos scratching his head
wondering how any of that was ban worthy??
did i eat crazy pills?
gspmademegay - February 12, 2012
After too many people would post saying how an article was useless, or boring, or pointless, etc, it pissed off the mods.
Nothing to contribute, then don’t post, or you’re Rule #4’d.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
he seemed to be contributing
someone just recd a comment of his before he was banned. didnt seem hostile or insulting, either. though i just read another comment of his, so maybe hes fine.
gspmademegay - February 12, 2012
Pahuus? The "pointless post" crack is on the forbidden list, right after "FIRST!".
It was minor, so if he apologizes, he’ll probably be let back in.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
im an idiot.
i thought unabomberman was banned. youre by boy, u!
gspmademegay - February 12, 2012
He also flagged Nate for trolling
so F him
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
Did not know that. Noted.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
One of my big concerns
with MMA and its future is that it’s such a young sport so eager for allies and advocates within the “mainstream” is that it will take any support it can get regardless of where it comes from. Mars Hill has a reputation for being a “young, hip” church. It also has a negative reputation regarding women’s rights and is not taken very seriously by other Christians (much the way Mormonism and Scientology are marginalized by the mainstream; not voicing a personal opinion about those two faiths, but I think you understand my meaning)
This is just a thought exercise, but does having this man voice his support for MMA actually bring that much in the way of benefits?
woomikee - February 12, 2012
they can't stop him
but the UFC doesn’t have to reach out to him.
T.P. Grant - February 12, 2012
I see your point, but I think the whole idea was just to present information regarding support from an unexpected source.
You could argue that same point regarding support from politically corrupt senators and such. Again, I do see your point and agree it is valid.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
Disregard my second statement. I was doing too many things at one time while my 2 yr. old helped me type. Obviously any type of legislative support is a good thing. I was thinking more in terms of personal character and the weight that persons words wield.
What Micah says below, yep that.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
For younger Christians, or those who are part of the “new church” movement? Yes. Driscoll’s words carry far with that particular group because he and Rob Bell are two men who are seen as people who are encouraging that particular movement. Granted, their ideas and theology are a bit off-kilter, but this isn’t a religious blog.
As it stands, any sort of Christian leader having a positive note on MMA isn’t a bad thing, especially if he’s well known. There are some religious folk out there that have a negative reaction to MMA simply because they don’t understand that.
Granted, anyone with any sense can tell you that reaction has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with people being people.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Yep, I'll rec that.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
MMA already as a mysogyny problem - Driscoll won't help it.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Only if he comments on WMMA.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Eh
Glad someone as prominent as Driscoll is saying that MMA isn’t of Satan or whatever, but this just seems to fit into his own controversial “Ultra-Masculine” persona.
We’ll see how this works but this guy’s ideas, when it comes to Theology and especially women, is the definition of JUST BLEED.
If you guys want to hear what Driscoll thinks on various subjects I suggest listening to his interview on the Unbelievable? radio show.
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
Wow
We’re doing pretty good on the non-offensiveness.
Imagine this post at mania?
halitosis - February 12, 2012
I'd rather not.
T.C. Engel - February 12, 2012
I picture it as a bunch of ladies in gifs doing non-Christian things
With cross tattoos
halitosis - February 12, 2012
(insert derp photo here)
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
I just lost a dozen IQ points just by considering the thought
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Agreed. I think that the level of knowledge represented in a typical BE thread scares most of the trolls off. That’s why I typically lurk in the background and rarely comment, lol.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
That's right. We're awesome.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
In all seriousness, I typically learn something new almost daily, or have something new to look into. I love the diversity of knowledge and background here. Sounds like I am nose deep in BE’s ass, but there isn’t another site I visit anywhere near as frequently.
wmuk - February 12, 2012
Well that isn’t a traditional news/educationally oriented site. ;)
wmuk - February 12, 2012
We've got a great thing going
Trolls rarely come up, and when they do, we’re pretty good at warding them off.
halitosis - February 12, 2012
I'm not a hardcore Christian or anything
But I definitely am a Christian as opposed to anything else…and I don’t really get why a combat sport would be hated so much.
I mean, do Christians hate boxing? Do they hate kickboxing? Do they hate Jiu Jitsu? MMA is essentially those things wrapped together(among other arts)
I don’t see the controversy or noteworthy-ness of ‘Christian supports MMA’
Chris Groves - February 12, 2012
I think the sport is still suffering the "human cockfighting" stigma from the 90's. And not a lot has been done to promote it as an artform.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
There’s scripture in the Bible that is often misinterpreted (once again, the human element) and is taken as “You should not delight in violence.” Now, I haven’t studied either Greek or Hebrew in close to six years, but if I recall correctly the proper context of said scripture is referencing murder and other heinous acts, as does much scripture that speaks out against death and violence.
Combat sports don’t really fit that category, really, but some will lump it in just because they’re ignorant to the concept. Once again, people being people.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Fair enough
I’m assuming any Christians, or religious folk at all, who loathe MMA are probably the more extremist and heavily conservative of them….those often labeled ‘irrational’
Chris Groves - February 12, 2012
Essentially. Like I said earlier, it’s the “old ladies” of most congregations.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Which is interesting
What sport occurred more times than any other in Scripture? Wrestling…
Andy Anderson - February 12, 2012
Is "war" a sport?
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Historically speaking...yes, I'd say so.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
If I remember correctly from my time in religious instruction
I think that there are a lot of things that the bible says are sinful that we don’t put much stock in as a society.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
Yep. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95hH1H5qK08
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
I personally believe that some aspects of the bible are fascinating and should be studied
And other parts are far outdated as far as morality and factual information are concerned. I think that people have to put in perspective that the bible was written by fellow men, with the same amount of human error that is in us all really.
The book of Leviticus is often pointed to when condemning Christianity, but it also has a lot of dumb things (like your video shows).
I think that although there are stories in the bible that are interesting and can benefit from being studied, I also think that you have to believe that some stories are extremely similar to mythology in that the people of their time were trying to explain something they had no explanation for.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
I have no problem treating the Bible as myth because that doesn't imply that it's true. It's when it's taken too seriously that I have a problem.
I must recommend: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Yes, when read as a mythology/etymology and history of the jewish people (obviously the Old testament). And the New testament as an idealogy, it can be very educational and informative.
It’s people that take whatever particular and singular quote that supports their point and defames anyone that disagrees with them that I get annoyed.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
ah
the old “out-of-context” trick.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Look above
This was explained pretty well
halitosis - February 12, 2012
I am an atheist. I’m not having any discussions about it here.
@fightlinkersubo
Derek Suboticki - February 12, 2012
Dammit Subo
You’re due for another banning.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
Is Subo testament that I can keep getting banned and always come back?
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Only an asshole claims to know what happens after we die!
(ducks)
Derek Suboticki - February 12, 2012
(throws a Jarate at Subo)
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
...
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
I was about to say that I’m impressed with this comment section, it’s been some really intelligent discourse.
Then Subo showed up.
Tim Burke - February 12, 2012
Sounds like a regular Sunday at BE.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
I fucking tried, man. But hey – I’ll try to address substance here:
If watching football is ok by your faith, then MMA should be too.
Derek Suboticki - February 12, 2012
I’m not trying to get banned, so all I can say is sigh. I wish that he wasn’t a fan of MMA and I wish he didn’t try to defend it if he’s going to approach Eastern philosophy with religious hubris.
FreeFocus - February 12, 2012
It’s not religious hubris to follow one’s religion.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
I should probably expand upon that statement.
One thing that annoys me about dogmatic atheism is the assumption that following one’s religion is essentially giving the finger to people of other beliefs. Not the case.
The Bible clearly states that those who follow God should have no other gods before him. Meaning that if you’re a Christian, you don’t start worshiping Cthulhu or whatnot. When he’s talking about discouraging learning from a teacher who is pushing a different religious ideology on top of teaching you fighting techniques, he’s not saying “That guy is a douche for believing something different.” He’s saying, “You know what the Bible says, so do your best to follow it.”
It’s not hubris. It’s called conviction. I know some people misinterpret it to the point where they use their beliefs to put themselves on a pedestal, but (once again) anyone will do that with anything, because people are people.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Rec to the Third Heaven
Robert Cowan - February 12, 2012
???
Isn’t the whole point of atheism to not have religious dogma attached to how you live your life? Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of it and the lack of believing in the supernatural or supreme beings.
flashlight cop - February 12, 2012
Scroll up
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
But there's a specific thing about Christianity
And that is that accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior™ is THE KEY. It’s the prerequisite to heavenly ascension. If you truly believe that, then you are in fact saying that everyone that hasn’t is going to Hell, and if you don’t truly believe that, then I’d hesitate to call you a Christian.
Derek Suboticki - February 12, 2012
I've been told atheists can get into heaven by a Catholic priest.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
only catholic?
Cunny - February 12, 2012
Don't know - never asked them. I was raised Catholic and deal m ostly with Catholic priests still.
South Louisiana. Cajuns. So it goes.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
oh ok
the impression i have is that the last second deathbed confession will work regardless of denomination
Cunny - February 12, 2012
Perhaps. don't know how that works.
“My good man, no is not the time to be making enemies.”
-Voltaire, on his deathbed, to a priest asking for a last-minute renunciation of the devil.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
kind of philosophical gray area.
you get into all kinds of questions regarding sincerity, coercion by the fear of the unknown, “cheap grace.”
in my opinion, the wise theologians don’t try to answer it and leave it up to God.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Orthodoxy
has the same stance. The Old Church is much more gangster about heretics than nonbelivers.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
Brothers Karamazov is the best novel I've read. My history teacher was EO, and he walked us through the theology.
Annoys me that some of my non-believing friends dismiss it outright because of the religion in it. How can you not like the Grand Inquisitor or Ivan Talks with the Devil?
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Anyone dismissing that book for those reasons
Is demonstrating the most ridiculous kind of anti-religious bigotry. And the most self-defeating. Many of the greatest works of art in history have been created for religious reasons; ignoring them for that reason is incredible philistinism in my opinion.
Hell, many of the greatest achievements of science were for the greater glory of God as well.
VenusBlue - February 13, 2012
I maintain Dante's Divine Comedy is the greatest work of art, across any medium, humans have made.
I don’t care if it’s Christian – re-title it “fantasy” or “myth” or what-have-you, but it’s incredible.
Scott C. Broussard - February 13, 2012
That is absolutely not true.
Chris Barton - February 12, 2012
So wait
You can get into Heaven without accepting Christ?
Derek Suboticki - February 12, 2012
Depends on the theology.
Even Dante had pagans in Purgatory…
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Actually
yes you can.
RolloTomasi - February 13, 2012
That is a denominational belief.
Chris Hall - February 12, 2012
That's actually not true.
Big misnomer.
RolloTomasi - February 12, 2012
It's almost like you haven't spent any time studying Christian beliefs at all.
Richard Wade - February 13, 2012
What I find annoying
is religious zealots who think they know how I should live my life better than I do.
flashlight cop - February 12, 2012
You're on a thin line
halitosis - February 12, 2012 via mobile
meh
really all i have to say about this
Cory Braiterman - February 12, 2012
MMA already has a mysogyny problem - Driscoll's demeaning of women is notorious, and I can't see how he'll bring anything good to the table. Read:
Here and here
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Kid Nate already linked to the Slate article above, Scott.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Crap. I knew that. Was re-enforcing the point. Yeah, that's it...
I’m medicated right now, so not thinking as clearly as normal. Thanks.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
No worries. I’m battling major sinus pain, so the fact that I’ve made even decent points is a friggin miracle. I haven’t slept in 24 hours, and once I lay down my head feels like it will explode.
MicahtheCynic - February 12, 2012
Driscoll thinks all women should be Ring Card Girls?
KJ Gould - February 12, 2012
He would probably say they should walk around dressed like that.
They should sit quietly, watching the kids, and tend to their man after the fight. It’s telling that in interviews with the couple, Mrs. Driscoll rarely speaks.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Busy thinking about ironing and cooking, obviously ...
disclaimer: I’m being facetious given Driscoll’s outdated social attitudes. Some people have to have it spelled out for them. The internet is serious business.
KJ Gould - February 12, 2012
Thing is, ring girls would be a step UP for his views.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
I'm so amazed that shit hasn't went bananas in here given the topic.
Zachary Kater - February 12, 2012
fear of the banhammer is in the air
Cunny - February 12, 2012
Only one comment has been hidden.
I may or may not have written it (whistles innocently).
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
yeah, i had a clever picture response to it
and next i looked, poof! it be gone.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
Aw. If you can't post it, tweet it or email it to me.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
nah
i realized i basically agreed with you.
dr. ransom - February 12, 2012
...
Sugel Mendoza - February 12, 2012
hey guys isn't dogmatic (?) atheism duuumbb??
recs to the right!
Pyrgz Krum - February 12, 2012
'But you're using that same tactic to try to feel superior to me, too!' 'Sorry, that accusation expires after one use per conversation.'
http://xkcd.com/774/
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
xkcd will always get a rec from me.
Richard Wade - February 13, 2012
I have to say BE is pretty awesome
I actually disagree with this as a martial artist. I find immersing oneself in the philosophy of an art helps you understand it better, and helps you adapt yourself to it. Whether it’s to use technique and not strength in bjj, learning to keep pushing hard in wrestling, floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee in boxing or using the art of eight limbs to your fullest potential, learning the philosophy behind an art is important to truly get a small mastery of it.
discoandherpes - February 12, 2012
If you're going to get into the spirit of tradtitional Muay Thai,
there are prevalent attitudes in the art; especially in holding your ground, relentless pressure, and a willingness to go toe- to- toe with your opponent. I think that western Muay Thai (commonly identified as the Dutch style) emphasizes versatility and smart strategy.
But I don’t think it’s necessary to do all the “Namaste” stuff if you’re doing yoga. Religious belief rarely has anything to do with Martial arts.
ElliotMatheny - February 12, 2012
There's also the whole "nude Greek wrestling" things I doubt we need to revive...
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Dude, I'm sure gay dudes already have. They're just not taping it.
Dudes will be dudes.
I mean, at one point there was a league called of Naked Women’s Wrestling. Guess who came up with that stuff? A guy.
Unabomberman - February 13, 2012
oh they're taping it
Nate Wilcox - February 13, 2012
Beat me to it.
Def. taping it.
If you can think it up, it’s been done and filmed.
NickRingp4pGOAT - February 13, 2012
Naked Kombat.
Google it. But I can’t & won’t link to it.
Scott C. Broussard - February 13, 2012
Good point
discoandherpes - February 13, 2012
there are technical masters in wrestling
and there are brutes in BJJ
kellly - February 12, 2012
Yuuuuuup.
Well said.
Ben Thapa - February 12, 2012
rec'd
T.P. Grant - February 12, 2012
I never said there weren't.
discoandherpes - February 13, 2012
I meant that when wrestling, there is a point you hit a wall
And you kind of need to dig deep and power double the wall and smash it into the ground and eat the bricks like a tasty yummy snack.
discoandherpes - February 13, 2012
From a certain someone:
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
free mike fagan
kellly - February 12, 2012
Nah.
MicahtheCynic - February 13, 2012
Mike is plenty free.
Richard Wade - February 16, 2012
it wasn't really the topic per se
it was that he didn’t have a feel for what would and wouldn’t be controversial and would need to be run by Brent and I. I fuck up all the time but I generally have the sense to know when something I’m writing about may hurt the site and I run it past someone else to get a 2nd opinion. Sometimes Brent and I are both wrong!
But we can’t really have someone in an editorial position with such huge blind spots and a sense of entitlement.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
I don't get it.
Dude says it wasn’t brought up to his attention when discussing why he was let go. I mean, “huge blind spots and a sense of entitlement” seem like something he would’ve remembered had it been brought up to his attention.
This is all really strange to me.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
he knew he fucked up when i deleted the Orthodox post
that was definitely communicated to him.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
for shame, it wasn't even a good post
kellly - February 12, 2012
All I’m noting is that dude wasn’t aware that the orthodox post had something, if anything, to do with why he was let go.
As you said previously, it was mostly about contracts and stuff (different people want different things), which I get, but I just don’t understand that he wasn’t aware that the Orthodox post had something to do with his being leaving BE, or whatever.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
i dunno man
if a guy doesn’t get that posting something that gets immediately pulled is going to be a long-term black mark I don’t know what to tell him.
Nate Wilcox - February 12, 2012
I dunno either.
The publishing world, blog-wise, is all strange to me. I don’t know what exactly constitutes a long term big deal and what doesn’t. It all boils down to individual expectations, I guess.
Thanks for taking the time to address this, Nate. I appreciate it.
:)
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Rec'd!!
flashlight cop - February 12, 2012
greened.
Derek Suboticki - February 12, 2012
i had no idea he was actually banned
i thought he just left
Cunny - February 13, 2012
I'm confused as to why a community moderator is helping a banned member post
What’s going on here?!
menckenstein - February 13, 2012
I’m as atheist as they come
Jesus H. Christ - February 12, 2012
Does you dad know?
Zing!
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
....
Jesus H. Christ - February 12, 2012
Self-esteem issues? Don't believe in yourself?
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
A sad problem with our youth these days...
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Joe Silva probably doesn't approve of this guy, either.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
i don't approve of ben fowlkes either
kellly - February 12, 2012
I am violently neutral to that guy.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
I have never been religious and have come to think of the idea as old world thinking. But if people find happiness in those beliefs than so be it.
I think this quote fits, I heard it many years ago.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
Clay Davis - February 12, 2012 via mobile
Problem is when 'live a good life' starts meddling with other people's business.
No matter if you believe in the Sky Guy or in just living however you see fit while not messing with anyone, there is a latent risk that ideals will get a hold of your brain and that you will try to forcefully push people to adhere to them.
Unabomberman - February 12, 2012
Sounds like your describing human nature
Clay Davis - February 12, 2012 via Android app
Using the wrong form of you're/your is going to result in warnings from now on...
Richard Wade - February 13, 2012
WHAT?
Unabomberman - February 13, 2012
Hey Grammer Police, usually I get the they’re, their, there correct. I believe i was too tired to care at that moment
Clay Davis - February 13, 2012
*Grammar
Zachary Kater - February 13, 2012
Don't sass me.
Richard Wade - February 16, 2012
Marcus Aurelius is a badass.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
Two words...
Bill Maher.
flashlight cop - February 12, 2012
I really enjoy his show.
I disagree with 80% of what he says, but I enjoy the honest discourse.
Andy Davis - February 12, 2012
Religilous?
Funny but hollow. 90min of cheap shots.
Scott C. Broussard - February 12, 2012
I really didn't like that movie.
And I usually enjoy Bill Maher. Imagine that.
His whole calling religion a “Neurological Disorder” just pissed me off to no end. But his approach to Muslim culture finally did me in.
Unabomberman - February 13, 2012
After talking to some of the religious people I know
You would think its a “Neurological Disorder” due to the pure insanity of their arguments, and the absolute disregard for all things they were taught growing up in school. You know like paying attention to the world around them and forming their own opinions based on those observations.
Where I live those are the only religious people we have around. I’d say the vast majority of the population here is either atheist or agnostic
Clay Davis - February 13, 2012
I really enjoyed parts of that movie
Not so much others.
discoandherpes - February 13, 2012
My biggest problem with Maher is that he's not funny.
Richard Wade - February 13, 2012
He's not always funny,
but he’s pretty much always entertaining. And if he isn’t saying something funny, he’s making a good point.
ElliotMatheny - February 13, 2012
I found him more entertaining before he found his way to HBO.
Richard Wade - February 16, 2012
Oddly enough, my favorite Christopher Hitchens moment is when he made Maher look like a fool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrzZLM0Tm4
He’s not funny, but to be quite honest I think that most of his “points” are reliant upon his audience having a shared ignorance.
MicahtheCynic - February 13, 2012
Hm. I’d really prefer my MMA to have nothing to do with religion. I’d prefer it to be treated as a sport, rather than as a justification for or affirmation of a particular set of beliefs.
Regardless. Anyone else think it’s funny that Driscoll’s rebuttal of pacifistic Christianity was essentially to point out that Jesus probably didn’t have long hair?
theslynx - February 12, 2012
the nonsequitor is a great option
anytime you’re facing tough questioning.
Nate Wilcox - February 13, 2012
It's nice that Driscoll is such a big fan of MMA, but I'd rather he not say anything at all.
It’s selfish, I know, but religion is one of those topics where I would rather it be as far removed as possible from something I love. Having grown up in a Catholic family, gone to Catholic school for a good portion of my childhood and now consider myself free from such chains, I’d prefer to view MMA as a sport. That said, I don’t see any conflict between how people of faith would reconcile their fondness for MMA with their beliefs. The way I see it, it could be construed as yet another human endeavour to reach excellence in the name of God. At least, it could be spun that way. Churches, just like governments, can take whatever they want and try to spin it in their favor to justify their goals. So I don’t see how anybody who is religious would have any problems justifying their love of the sport.
pud333 - February 12, 2012
eyukkkgghhhhhhhhh
miked612 - February 13, 2012
Good words. Pretty much anyone saying good things about MMA is a good thing. Good Good Good. Good day.
fedorade - February 13, 2012
I haven't contributed anything to this thread
Mostly due to my inferiority complex when it comes to religion (going to a conservative Catholic University where the top major is theology will do that, I guess.) but this has been the most refreshing discussion of religion I have ever read on the internet. Christians, Athiests, and everyone in between being civil is a great thing. Everyone should be convicted in their beliefs, but don’t need to attack others who are convicted in their own specific beliefs, and if you do not have that conviction you should explore why this is the case.
Andy Anderson - February 13, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bloody Elbow to post a comment.