Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Priests and their obsession with Status and Wealth
Comments
-
.................and all I was seeking was some opinions on priests and their cash in hand activities.
This forum has been very silent and lacking in posts and posters of late. So when somethings happens, it kinds takes off quickly
As others have said I myself also do not see too many priests with wealth or an obsession with it. In fact I remember some news paper articles from the UK a few years back lamenting the fact that priests have had to get second jobs stacking shelved in supermarkets just to make ends meet.
Here in Germany where I live the money to pay priests have become so low that parishes like my own have let all their German priests go entirely.... then amalgamated two or three parishes into one.... and imported a cheaper black african priest who can not even speak German to minister to them all. A few years back my town, which had two churches, finally knocked one down due to lack of interest and lack of priests. The poor african is not running around 3 or 4 towns trying to be a priest to people who do not even speak English.
All that said though I do remember working in an Esso station in Cork when I was in University down there. And there was a regular priest of some higher than average station who came in every week in his massive Mercedes paying for a nice tank of gas with his platinum/gold credit card. From his car, his card, and his clothing he did not strike me as anyone other than someone of WELL above average means. My usually great memory fails me here however, as I used to recall his name. I suspect he was not a Catholic priest though. Is it protestants who wear the black coat over a wine/red undercoat and white shirt?0 -
-
-
-
-
one world order wrote: »Do you subscribe to the notion we don't have a soul? Do we exist in this world in the physical only. if that's the case do you thing a dead person and alive person are the same?
In case you weren't aware, you're on a atheist forum where most folks here find your notion of a soul to be absurd, much like your notions of a god and the mythology that surrounds that god. The difference between a living and dead organism of any kind, whether a person or a fungal infection in between their toes, is that one is alive and the other isn't. So for example, if I use an anti-fungal cream to kill of the infection between my toes, do you suppose the souls all of the many fungi I've just slaughtered go to to fungus heaven? Or perhaps fungus hell, because after all they've been pretty cruel to my poor tootsies
What evidence can you provide that life could exist incorporeally, i.e. without any kind of a substrate? I assume this is what you mean by soul.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
one world order wrote: »The snake was the devil in the garden of Eden. It was the first mention of how the Devil tempts people into sin.
No, you're wrong. You've either missed the point that I was making or flatly ignored it. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was the former.
Yes, Christians believe that the serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan in disguise. But the story doesn't actually say that. In fact, Genesis 3:1 explicitly states that the serpent is a wild animal which God had made. Also, in Hebrew the serpent is described as:
נָחָ֣שׁ
or nachash which is used 10 times in the OT to refer to a serpent or snake. There is no connection made in the story between this serpent and Satan. And as I've already explained this is because the people who wrote Genesis didn't believe in Satan. At least not in the way Christians do. The Satan character which appears in the OT is described as moloch yahwheh, an angel of God and when he appears in Numbers 22, Job 1-2, Zechariah 3:1-2 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, he is acting to oppose humans, not God.
The idea of Satan as a rebellious angel or the lord of hell is a later development. The serpent in the garden is just a talking animal.one world order wrote: »You now are talking about slavery in the USA. What happened to the original statement that the bible encouraged slavery, when it was proven to be wrong.
OK, let's recap for a second. The idea of slavery came into this thread when SouthWesterly said:
"Absolutely, let's bring back slavery and child labour. After all, it was Christians who campaigned for their abolition. And as for murder, theft, adultery, lying. Sure they were Judeo/Christian concepts and were deemed to be wrong by followers of a fable."
So the original point was that abandoning Christianity would be rather like throwing the baby out with the bathwater since it was Christians who campaigned to abolish slavery.
Then Hotblack Desiato pointed out that other Christians fought to keep slavery on the basis of the bible. You then responded to SouthWesterly's original point by saying:
"Slavery and child labour was never encouraged. Another false lie created"
Now, in your point, you don't clarify, by whom the slavery was encouraged.
Slavery was certainly encouraged and defended by people, particularly in the US, and they made regular and detailed appeals to the bible to support their claims to the moral rectitude of slavery.
The only remaining question is whether the bible encourages slavery. It certainly doesn't actively promote slavery or say that it is a good thing. But neither does it condemn slavery. It sanctions and regulates slavery and within those commandments are some pretty barbaric instructions, like saying that its ok to beat your slave as long as they don't die within a few days, as in Exodus 21:21.
More importantly, slavery is further condoned in the NT too, with Paul's exhortation for slaves to obey their masters in Ephesians 6:5.
At no point is there a prohibition on slavery or a simple commandment like "don't own people" which you would expect an actual merciful God to implement.
Further, when you say:
"Slavary existed back then. Bible doesn't say it is okay but mentions how they should be treated. In the seventh year they shall be set free."
you're being disingenuous to what the text actually says.
First, it doesn't say that any slave shall be set free in the seventh year. Only Hebrew slaves were to be set free. If you had a slave from another nation, then you were free to hang on to them for life. Second, Exodus 21:4-6 provides a loophole to allow slave owners to keep Hebrew slaves forever:
"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."
Also, you say that slavery existed back then so the bible regulates it. So what is wrong with your god that he couldn't have included a prohibition against slavery.one world order wrote: »Humans were created by intelligent design and we differ to animals as we were made in Gods image. There is no proof to say we evolved from nothing.
No, we really weren't. Or to be clearer, there's no evidence for intelligent design try as creationists might have over the last half century or so.
First, a minor nitpick. We're not different from animals. We are animals. An animal, in biology, is defined as any organism which must digest another organism in order to live.
As for human evolution, we know that we evolved from earlier species. One of the observations that confirms our evolutionary history is the fact that humans have 46 chromosomes and chimps and other primates have 48. So, if there is truth to common ancestry then two chromosomes which remain distinct in chimps must have fused in humans at some point in the past. Also, since chromosomes have distinctive regions to mark their centre and end points (centromeres and telomeres), we should be easily able to identify this. And this is exactly what we found:
We found a neocentromere on human chromosome 2 which matches the pattern of chimp chromosomes 12 and 13.
But it's not just this one observation. We have multiple lines of concordant evidence which demonstrates common ancestry as opposed to intelligent design. Like ERVs for example.
ERVs or endogenous retroviruses are single-stranded RNA viruses that inject a portion of their genome into the host DNA through a process of reverse transcription like in the diagram below:
Unlike HIV, for example, these viruses are capable of infecting germline cells and so get passed on to the next generation. By examining these sequences in humans and comparing them with sequences found in other apes we can see a clear pattern of common descent.
The reason that ERVs demonstrate evidence for common descent is simple. Since the virus is endogenous, it is retained in all descendant branches. So all offspring of an ancestral creature will retain the same ERV strain. If the descendants of a creature diverge and become disparate groups, then each group can pick up a new or mutated ERV which will then be retained in that branch only.
Let's say that we have a crown species for all mammals (theria) which we'll call mammalia commonalis. This picks up an exogenuous virus which infects its germ cells. We'll call this virus ERV1. Now, a couple of steps down the line, we have a split between glires and euarchonta. Here, the crown species for glires which we'll call glirus originalis acquires a new virus, ERV2. Next, another few steps down the line, simiiformes diverge from tarsiiformes, with the simiiformes crown species, which we'll call simius primus acquiring a new virus, ERV3.
So when we look at humans, what do we expect to find. We should find a copy of ERV1 which we share with all other mammals, and a copy of ERV3 which is shared only by other simiiformes, but we should not expect to find a copy of ERV2. Also if we look at another species in the same group as us, say chimpanzees, we should not expect to find a copy of ERV2 there either.
Humans, at this point, have 30,000 such ERV sequences in our genome and the evidence we have gathered from comparative genomic analysis of these sequences demonstrates our common descent with other species.
So, not intelligent design.one world order wrote: »You agree there is evidence of flooding in that region. If dragons/dinosaurs did exist, simply flying above the flood waters wouldn't prevent their demise as first they would starve as all the earth was covered in water and second their natural prey would now not exist.
In that region, not the whole world. There was no global flood. The only physical evidence is for a local flood centred on the Sumerian city of Shuruppak. If dragons did exist then they could have just flown 100km away to where there was no flood. As for dinosaurs, there are hundreds of species of dinosaurs including several groups of aquatic dinosaur species like plesiosaurs and mosasaurs which should have been easily able to survive a flood.one world order wrote: »White sulphur springs in Virginia got its name from springs of sulphur water, not burnt sulphur ash. Sulphur from volcanic activity is yellow. There is no volcanic activity where Sodom and Gormorrah is today. If you visted the place you would see the old cities covered in the white ash and old buildings and temples melted. This would support the raining down of fire by God on the cities 3,500 years ago.
Actually what you said previously was:
"The old cities of Sodam and Gomorrah exist today covered in white sulphur which cannot be found anywhere else and shows old temples that melted inwards."
I pointed out that this, particularly the highlighted section is false. You can in fact find white sulphur (i.e. monoclinic sulphur) in other places, particularly hot springs.
In your quote above where you mention sulphur ash, you seem not to even understand the argument that creationists have been making. Its not about the presence of white sulphur but rather the abnormally high purity of the sulphur nodules found in the Lisan formation which creationists have taken as evidence of the rain of fire and brimstone which wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. However, as Bishop et al. have shown in Fire and Brimstone: The Microbially Mediated Formation of Elemental Sulfur Nodules from an Isotope and Major Element Study in the Paleo Dead Sea. the sulphur nodules found in the formation are not the result of a heavenly rain of fire and brimstone but rather the activity of anerobic bacteria converting the naturally occurring gypsum into elemental sulphur.
The creationist Steve Collins who has made the loudest claims about evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah has not only got the science wrong but also the basic location. As other bible scholars have pointed out the Tall el-Hammam location proposed by Collins doesn't match the biblical description of Sodom or the date of its destruction. Collins places the destruction towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age, somewhere between 1500 and 1600 BCE which doesn't match the chronology of the Old Testament.one world order wrote: »Isaiah 40.22 says "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in". Where in that does it say the earth is flat?
In Isaiah 40:22, it says circle, as in flat disc, not sphere. The Hebrew word
ח֝֗וּג
is used to refer to a flat circle. It is used in this sense in Proverbs 8:27 also. Had the writer of Isaiah meant to imply a sphere then they would have used the word:
דּ֥וּר
or ball, in the sense it is used in Isaiah 22:18 or Ezekiel 24:5.
Now, as for some other points you made:one world order wrote: »Jesus overcame death by the resurrection. He was witnessed by 500 people and so proved life exists after death.
How do you know? Paul is a man who never met Jesus and his account of 500 witnesses, which is at best second-hand information, is flatly contradicted by Acts. Acts 10:40-41 states:
"God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead."
Acts states that the only people Jesus made himself visible to were those he ate and drank with like the story of Cleopas and his companion in Luke 24:13-32. Further, in Acts 1:15 we are told:
"In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)"
So there were 120 believers present at the ascension. This means that since the appearance to "over 500" brethren must have taken place before this point then at least 380 of them would have had to have buggered off in the meantime for the two stories to be compatible. However, Jesus makes it clear in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4 that the believers he appeared to were commanded to remain in Jerusalem until the ascension.
" I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Luke 24:49
"On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about."
Acts 1:4
So, how do you know there were any witnesses? Why should we trust Paul?0 -
-
-
In case you weren't aware, you're on a atheist forum where most folks here find your notion of a soul to be absurd, much like your notions of a god and the mythology that surrounds that god. The difference between a living and dead organism of any kind, whether a person or a fungal infection in between their toes, is that one is alive and the other isn't. So for example, if I use an anti-fungal cream to kill of the infection between my toes, do you suppose the souls all of the many fungi I've just slaughtered go to to fungus heaven? Or perhaps fungus hell, because after all they've been pretty cruel to my poor tootsies
What evidence can you provide that life could exist incorporeally, i.e. without any kind of a substrate? I assume this is what you mean by soul.
Most people that have reason can see a difference between a dead body and a person that is alive. A soul has mental abilities such as feeling, memory, preception, thinking and reason. May atheist's have over thought, going down a hole to try justify Gods non-existence resulting in absurd statements.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
This is typical of a response from an Atheist without attacking the poster.
I am glad you noticed I never attacked the poster.Sounds like you've made up your mind before you asked any questions about a diety.
I have not "made up my mind" as such. What I have done however is built up a massive wealth of experience in talking with theists. And not just some but ALL of that experience so far has gone one way and one way only: Which is not seeing them evidence their claims.
I still talk to them however when they show up, precisely because I am not "made up" on this but always open to discourse and always open to new evidence coming I have not been shown before.As an agnostic pagan I believe in evolution but my trust with science is slightly diluted in the last few years.
The whole point of science is not to simply trust, but to test test, question, test again. So ironically your drop in trust might make you a better scientist.It's easy to debunk it at times, especially in the plant Kingdom the benefits of hybridised plant's for consumption, manipulating nature has horrific outcomes.
Manipulation of nature in and of itself does not have horrific outcomes usually. It is what we DO with that result, data or knowledge that does good or does bad. Take splitting the atom for example. That has good applications if we choose them. It has horrific ones too if we choose them.
Science itself does not do evil, or good. It gives us the tools to choose good or evil. And I would grant you, we choose the latter more often than I would like for sure. But that is not the fault of science.So you're in the top 4 where evolution is concerned, where's your evidence of being in the top 10...
Do you read things people write before you reply to them. Look again, I said that estimation was a guess. I was very clear and open and honest that it was a guess. I have followed all the threads on the atheist forum on the evolution subject for many years including the painful back and forth with "J C" where I read for my sufference every single post in that thread.
Thus far I remember three users specifically who I remember saying "Jaysus, Ive studied this stuff deeply and this guy/gal knows a hell of a lot more than me about it all the same". So my guess is based on that only really. But when I say I got the feeling they knew more, I mean a LOT more. There are users around here who every time they post you just know you're in the presence of someone who knows more than you do, and maybe more than you ever will.
Pretty much every post made by Oldrnwisr above for instance would be an example of that. I learn multiple things pretty much every time he deigns to post here.
But this area of the forum does not have a hell of a lot of posters, so thinking oneself in the top 4 on any given topic is actually quite meaningless really It's like when Neil DeGrasse Tyson was asked if he felt proud of winning the award of "Sexiest Astrophysicist" and he replied simply "Have you considered the category at all?" 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am glad you noticed I never attacked the poster.
I have not "made up my mind" as such. What I have done however is built up a massive wealth of experience in talking with theists. And not just some but ALL of that experience so far has gone one way and one way only: Which is not seeing them evidence their claims.
I still talk to them however when they show up, precisely because I am not "made up" on this but always open to discourse and always open to new evidence coming I have not been shown before.
The whole point of science is not to simply trust, but to test test, question, test again. So ironically your drop in trust might make you a better scientist.
Manipulation of nature in and of itself does not have horrific outcomes usually. It is what we DO with that result, data or knowledge that does good or does bad. Take splitting the atom for example. That has good applications if we choose them. It has horrific ones too if we choose them.
Science itself does not do evil, or good. It gives us the tools to choose good or evil. And I would grant you, we choose the latter more often than I would like for sure. But that is not the fault of science.
Do you read things people write before you reply to them. Look again, I said that estimation was a guess. I was very clear and open and honest that it was a guess. I have followed all the threads on the atheist forum on the evolution subject for many years including the painful back and forth with "J C" where I read for my sufference every single post in that thread.
Thus far I remember three users specifically who I remember saying "Jaysus, Ive studied this stuff deeply and this guy/gal knows a hell of a lot more than me about it all the same". So my guess is based on that only really. But when I say I got the feeling they knew more, I mean a LOT more. There are users around here who every time they post you just know you're in the presence of someone who knows more than you do, and maybe more than you ever will.
Pretty much every post made by Oldrnwisr above for instance would be an example of that. I learn multiple things pretty much every time he deigns to post here.
But this area of the forum does not have a hell of a lot of posters, so thinking oneself in the top 4 on any given topic is actually quite meaningless really It's like when Neil DeGrasse Tyson was asked if he felt proud of winning the award of "Sexiest Astrophysicist" and he replied simply "Have you considered the category at all?"
Thanks for not attacking my post either
Oldrnwisers posts are pretty much medicore to be honest, a posting style that pretty much sums up why he used that username.
I'm from North Clare myself,so that's why I used the name Nthclare, with a silent or....
I know more about the Burren than any other poster here,and that saddens me feeling alone in the biosphere of The Atheist and Agnostic forum.
There was a time when this forum was great craic, and banter, unfair bans and laughter.
Yes you're right about science, it does give you the tools to do good or evil.
Nature never forgives, I remember one time I quoted "John Moriarty" here saying I heard him say nature never forgives..
Sure Robindch wasn't long about having a dig at John saying he knew him year's ago in Connemara and proceeded to try to undermine the guy....
You say people can't evidence their claims, but I find it hard to get my head around humanity claiming they're the most intelligent form of life on this planet.
I'd say dolphins and Octopuses are far more intelligent than us.
Being an agnostic pagan I believe that there's something intelligent at work in the universe but it's not the biblical god or sky fairy you hear intelligent idiot's call people's God.
I look at a breaking wave on a reef on an offshore day, who's the intelligent one ?
The surfer getting shacked or the way nature combined with, a slab of rock, offshore breeze and heavy ground swell forms the perfect wave.
In my eye I'm only the observer, it's my opinion but I didn't create that beauty and perfection.
So like the big blue dot, I'm tiny in the big scheme of things.
The Abrahamic belief's have a different idea to the pagan, they'll believe God put that there and it's for our use, it doesn't go any further, other than thanking God and he created in that's it.
The atheist, well I never asked one what do they think of creation, how they observe a flower in a meadow...
Would you like to see evidence for the Abrahamic God?
I wouldn't to be honest, If I was a writer of a story about the battle of the God's I'd have the Abrahamic diety as a warmongering, manipulative , diety of fear and retribution.
Basically a sand Demon from the middle east who's infiltration of the western world is absolute Chao's and all the other god's getting together and banishing that demonstrates back to the sandy waste lands it came from.0 -
-
-
-
-
Oldrnwisr's posts are uniformly excellent - though like most things in life, you will earn in proportion to the effort you put in and from your unfriendly comment, one assumes that you've put little or no effort in to reading them.Oldrnwisers posts are pretty much medicore to be honest, a posting style that pretty much sums up why he used that username.
You don't remember very well - I knew John Moriarty when he used to live a mile or two away from me in Kerry.Nature never forgives, I remember one time I quoted "John Moriarty" here saying I heard him say nature never forgives... Sure Robindch wasn't long about having a dig at John saying he knew him year's ago in Connemara and proceeded to try to undermine the guy....
While John was well versed in poetry and prose, his knowledge of science and the world around him generally was zero, or indeed, subzero since he appeared to have spent much time developing or acquiring a range of anti-scientific and unscientific views and information which would have embarrassed a mediocre secondary school student.
A point which I took up with Moriarty myself one day and found his answer as halfhearted as it was presumptuous. He explained using reams of vague, woolly words that real beauty could never be found or appreciated by people who were able to look at things carefully and scientifically. I replied that science did not detract from one's own natural appreciation, but instead, added to it by finding new dimensions to wonder at. He countered, saying that it was closed-minded to look at things scientifically - he did not explain why and I recall abandoning the conversation shortly afterwards as it was clear that he had his point of view, and wasn't interested in either changing it, or making any effort to learn whether it was inaccurate. He seemed unconcerned about the his presumptuousness.The atheist, well I never asked one what do they think of creation, how they observe a flower in a meadow...
Fenyman had a similar discussion with one of his friends:
0 -
Oldrnwisr's posts are uniformly excellent - though like most things in life, you will earn in proportion to the effort you put in and from your unfriendly comment, one assumes that you've put little or no effort in to reading them.You don't remember very well - I knew John Moriarty when he used to live a mile or two away from me in Kerry.
While John was well versed in poetry and prose, his knowledge of science and the world around him generally was zero, or indeed, subzero since he appeared to have spent much time developing or acquiring a range of anti-scientific and unscientific views and information which would have embarrassed a mediocre secondary school student.A point which I took up with Moriarty myself one day and found his answer as halfhearted as it was presumptuous. He explained using reams of vague, woolly words that real beauty could never be found or appreciated by people who were able to look at things carefully and scientifically. I replied that science did not detract from one's own natural appreciation, but instead, added to it by finding new dimensions to wonder at. He countered, saying that it was closed-minded to look at things scientifically - he did not explain why and I recall abandoning the conversation shortly afterwards as it was clear that he had his point of view, and wasn't interested in either changing it, or making any effort to learn whether it was inaccurate. He seemed unconcerned about the his presumptuousness.
Fenyman had a similar discussion with one of his friends:
I could have wrote that response myself, Kerry, Connemara few miles apart in the bigger scheme of things.
Comparing Moriarty with a medicore secondary student is a bit unfair, but if you're content with that assumption then I have an understanding of how you compare people.
John probably sensed you were trying to catch him out and if you're not intuitive enough to think mystically and scientifically then take what you like from both then you're incapable of having a balanced discussion.
I know a lot about botany and horticulture so I can talk that language as well as learning about mysticism and thinking metaphorically, I'm also a poet and writer.
I'm a big fan of HP Lovecraft, amongst other writers and can look at what's going on around me through the mystical sense's and scientific evidence too.
I've shared a few journey's with John on busses in the 90's and I found him interesting and our ideas about plants were a bit oppositional, but I didn't think because I had a diploma in horticulture, I was a better gardener or he was a spoofer.
So you say John's knowledge about the world around him was zero or sub zero.
I don't have to prove that you're wrong because it's your opinion and obviously you're sticking to that.
I don't agree with everything John wrote, but I can see that he had a broad knowledge of the world around him. He lived in a rural setting and it was the world he knew and observed without having to have a scientific viewpoint, what has science to do with someone's world view ?
Some people's ability to match phenomes with understanding is a gift, others are already emotionally attached to a debate before it starts, therefore before the talk starts they're already right in their own mind, but they've already walked into the sword.
I come in here rarely as I find some poster's will try to cut another poster down rather than help build up an understanding and cooperation or some kind of level playing field.
Are these debate's in Atheism and Agnoticism a race ? a competion ? a difference of opinion ? or light hearted debate not to be taken seriously ?0 -
Thanks for the Richard Feynman clip, I think with both sides, the poetic, artist as well as the scientific creative and wonderment of the flower.
But I prefer to work with the good old pre Victorian style plants for example regency period garden plants rather than the modern generic hybrid's and manipulated crop's.
I do see your point and I appreciate you pointing that out to me, believe you me having a head full of science, poetry, art and mysticism aint easy...
Kind of like mixing drinks on a night out, and waking up with a hangover..
Although I'm off the hooch 17 years, metaphorically speaking I'm only an arm's length away from a drink 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I think speak for yourself then I suppose. I know when I have ever trained with such things we give it everything because when you do then you learn better. If you are training with someone going half ass on it then it is harder to be beaten and when you are beaten you learn. It's one of the things I love about it in fact, it brings a lovely humility and a nice life view that even in defeat one wins if one learns. I learned of course when people showed me moves and helped me practice executing them. I never learned so much though as when they did something on me and I got to post-process what happened and how.
I have heard Joe Rogan and Jokko Willik say pretty much the same thing too. But of course everyone trains different so I do not really see them, me, or you as "right" or "wrong" as such. Everyone does it their way.
All that said 1) I have trained hardly at all in my life compared to say you or taxahcruel who I know has been doing it intensely for over a decade and is frankly amazing at it so I am speaking as a complete novice and 2) we might be over extending the analogy a bit I think The purpose of analogy is never to be perfect, but to illuminate a point.
Shame I do not know who you are though Be fun to try and find some of your appearances online. 0 -
We'll agree to differ so. Going full tilt all the time was the type of approach we used in Karate in the 80s but for me is a young persons game. Learning how to relax and think under dynamic pressure was more of a focus in later years. More pragmatic than dogmatic and an approach I take to many aspects of life.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Shame I do not know who you are though Be fun to try and find some of your appearances online.
Last big event I competed in was 2002, so more on VHS than online. John Kavanagh was a regular boardsie at that time too, offering free BJJ lessons to those interested. Opportunities lost, hey. All of my early posts on boards were over on martial arts and there used to be some video footage knocking around over there.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I think speak for yourself then I suppose. I know when I have ever trained with such things we give it everything because when you do then you learn better. If you are training with someone going half ass on it then it is harder to be beaten and when you are beaten you learn. It's one of the things I love about it in fact, it brings a lovely humility and a nice life view that even in defeat one wins if one learns. I learned of course when people showed me moves and helped me practice executing them. I never learned so much though as when they did something on me and I got to post-process what happened and how.
I have heard Joe Rogan and Jokko Willik say pretty much the same thing too. But of course everyone trains different so I do not really see them, me, or you as "right" or "wrong" as such. Everyone does it their way.
All that said 1) I have trained hardly at all in my life compared to say you or taxahcruel who I know has been doing it intensely for over a decade and is frankly amazing at it so I am speaking as a complete novice and 2) we might be over extending the analogy a bit I think The purpose of analogy is never to be perfect, but to illuminate a point.
Shame I do not know who you are though Be fun to try and find some of your appearances online.
Do you use gravity to your advantage, I loved a good old wrestle in my day and I learned how to use gravity to my advantage.
Used to do judo and kick boxing in the 90's then tried Jujitsu, but my martials art's came to an abrupt end after a bad accident and back surgery.
I'm still fit and athletic and can lift heavy item's and do physical work but impact is a no no..0 -
I am a quite short wimpy IT computer nerd. Trust me I used ANYTHING to my advantage I could
Once had the privilege to watch TaxAHCruel and his girlfriends spar BJJ and demonstrate Capoeira for an hour or so in their garden. You learn quite quickly watching them just how little you know. Humbling isn't the word when a petite and insanely attractive 28 year old who looks 17 can manipulate you like a toy doll. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »What was the thread about again? Something about whether the priests wear prada or something
Or as the say in Unionist circles up North, orange is the new black :pac:0 -
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo
Advertisement