Saturday, December 17, 2011
Does God Exist?
By: Margriet Struik
"I don't believe in God. I believe in something, just not in God".
When questioned about their belief in God, a lot people seem to have a very narrow view of what God is supposed to be, inextricably linked to organised religion. When they cannot reconcile that narrow view with their own belief system they state that they do not believe in God and therefore have no relationship with the divine. That relationship may still be desired, as it could bring security, unconditional love, support at times of need and a sense of belonging, but it would constitute a lie to oneself and can therefore not be maintained. Many who claim they are non-believers however, are still left with the feeling that there is something bigger than ourselves, something they would like to connect to at some level, just not within the traditional context of organised religion.
As I see it, there are many ways to approach the concept of God and organised religion is just one of them.
Organised religion generally poses the personal God, usually male, an omnipotent (all powerful) being who rules the world and who, by allowing human beings the freedom of choice, also allows the existence of His Antagonist, the Devil. This God wants His subjects to come to Him of their own free will, but when they don't, they will spend eternity in the flames of Hell. There is only one life and it must be lived by God's rules. Within Christianity, there are ways of purging sins, through confession and true repentance, in which case an officially assigned representative of God can grant you forgiveness and cleanse your soul. If you can not get access to such a representative of God before you die, tough luck, you die and go to Hell whether you are repentant or not. Up until very recently, the Catholic church did not allow stillborn babies into heaven, they had to stay in 'Limbo' for eternity because they were not baptised before death. ('Limbo' is a place just outside Heaven, away from Hell but also away from the presence of God.)
I personally believe that this is a very limited view of God. This God is not omnipotent; there seem to be enormous shortcomings to his power if he is incapable to grant forgiveness to a repenting soul, without an intervening human representative (e.g. priest) acting on his behalf. This God is not omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time) either: he is absent in Limbo, absent in Hell for eternity and absent until access has been granted through baptism, again performed by an officially assigned human representative. Choice is relative, here: 'you do as I say, or you will burn in Hell for eternity'. After death, this God refuses shelter to anyone who has not abided by his rules; the concept of forgiveness is pretty short lived. Access to heaven is, up to a certain point, simply luck of the draw. It is not granted on the basis of your contribution to the world as a caring, loving, non-judgemental human being, who is never afraid of helping out other people, and making right and just decisions, rather than ones driven by personal gain. This may play a part, but not the most important one. Access to heaven is gained mainly by baptism, worship on Sunday, by praying and reading your bible, by telling God you think he's great, you love him and can't live without him. So if you happen to be born in a place that has never heard of this God; if you die alone; if you cannot get access to one of those representatives before you die, who can grant forgiveness for your sins and cleanse your soul; if you die angry with God because you have been hurt and abused, you are not allowed to be with God. You go to Hell.
Life in this context is not a process of growing: it is a cruel and unfair test, with most people in this world seriously disadvantaged, or even incapable of passing, through circumstances beyond their control.
Organised religions are frameworks, encompassing theological theories about the nature of the divine, usually represented as absolute truths, and rules about approaching and incorporating the divine into one's life, usually predicting dire consequences if these rules are not adhered to. The most important thing to understand about organised religions is that they have to keep their institutions alive and as such it is within their best interest to stipulate worship through their facilities, using their people. The need to be needed in order to survive must prevail, because otherwise, they will cease to exist. That is why giving money to religious institutions, in collects or as gifts, is considered a divine duty, why one can only receive true salvation through the institutions and why members are ordered to keep coming back, every morning in the past, and now, as most congregations are waning, at least once a week. Institutions, at their best, do wonderful things. Through them, wonderful people help other people in wonderful ways. But they remain organisations whose belief structures and divine rules are coloured by a need to survive.
I believe that the problem many people seem to have with the concept of God could be due to a failure of organised religions to move with the times, theologically. Many individual representatives of the churches do not subscribe to the idea of hell as they used to, nor to the idea of God as a vengeful, punishing force. Many even acknowledge the possibility of a relationship with God outside the confounds of church and traditional worship, but in essence, the churches still put forward an imposing patriarchal society in all aspects of religious life: a personal male God, benevolent father, head of the household, prescribing a framework of morals and lifestyle rules and restrictions as well as regular worship within religious institutions. The feminine is still entirely absent from the divine. Mary has never been granted divinity; she may be the 'mother of God' but she is still considered human. The archangels are male; Jesus is male. Nobody in this divine family has ever had sex because sex, although quite necessary for the survival of the human race (we can not all achieve 'immaculate conceptions'), is still dirty and, at the heart of it, sinful. At the heart of most religious life is still worship, rather than love for one another in day to day life. Why would God care so much about being worshipped and thanked all the time? Does he have such a big ego?
Monotheism is the existence of a single omnipresent, omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent deity, or God. It is claimed that Christianity is monotheistic, but there are some problems with this claim. In practice we do not see an omnipotent and omnipresent God, as discussed earlier in this article. His omniscience is questionable also. Firstly, his perspective is limited by his sex: he is male and therefore lacks female perspective. (Although in the Old Testament this view of God as solely male is contradicted, e.g. Gen 5.1-2: ... When God created man, he made them in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.) Secondly, there are many occasions in the Old Testament where God asks questions in order to get answers, e.g Job 1.7 (To Satan:) "Whence have you come?" (God does not know where Satan came from) or: Gen 18.26: And the Lord said, "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake." (God does not know how many righteous people live in Sodom). But even if we are to take the bible as written by fallible people, rather than God himself, it is still hard to sustain the notion that this God is truly monotheistic.
So why is this an issue at all? Well, it is an issue because there is an inherent contradiction in organised religion. We are told on the one hand that this God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, but on the other hand, the entire frameworks prescribed to us by organised religions tell us that he is none of these things. The theology limits God's power, God's understanding, God's knowledge, God's reach. The fact is, that many people who claim they 'don't believe in God but believe in something' believe in God as something much more than that.
True monotheism, which Christianity claims to be but is not, encompasses a God that is truly omniscient, neither male nor female, and at the same time, both; a God that is truly omnipotent, who controls all and yet nothing because the world would run this way because there is no other way; a God that is omnipresent, who is all things and yet, nothing, because the very nature of being is already finite. This God is past, present and future, and all at the same time because this God is time and beyond time. This God is so all encompassing that we cannot escape it, no matter how 'bad' we are or how much we deny its existence. To deny this God would be to deny ourselves. This God does not need or demand worship, nor praise or prayer, because this God has no ego. Rather, we are the ones that need prayer, in order to connect back with what is true. Connecting to this God would mean connecting with what needs to be, to embrace life. Hell is merely an illusion, a state of denial, an absence, rather than an active force of being. Hell does not truly exists because God is omnipresent and therefore a place without God can not exist.
So in answer to the main question: does God exist, we might say this: the concept of God as an all-encompassing thing, or life itself in all shapes and forms, embraces any view of the world around us. There is no limit to what you can believe or disbelieve. We know so little and we are so little, in this world. One might say that angels and ghosts and fairies do not exist, because there is no 'real' proof. There is even less proof that they don't exist. One might say that reincarnation is just an inability to accept that when we're dead, that's it, we're really not that important. On the other hand, not believing it might just be an excuse not to learn what we need to learn, because if we don't, we will have to in the next life. The existential doubt of the existence of God has always struck me as slightly odd. The sun rises every day, doesn't it? You are breathing, aren't you? Do you deny the existence of the universe, just because we can not measure it, just because we do not understand?
So what about that relationship with God? How can you connect to all these things at the same time, and why would you bother if you don't believe in the grey man on the cloud?
Well, the answer is simple. You don't have a relationship with God for God, that would be ridiculous. You have a relationship with God or 'the divine' for you, in order to find a moment of peace and tranquillity and in order to feel connected and in control in a very demanding, stressful world. Addressing God in those brief moments does not automatically mean you believe God is a man on a cloud. You could pray, you could talk to God when no one can hear you, write a letter to God, do yoga, meditate, take some quiet time of contemplation. You won't be lying to yourself. You can have your theological cake and eat it. And at its best, maybe that is what organised religion manages to offer to some of us: an almostm tangible relationship with something that is ultimately beyond definition.
Author BioMargriet Struik is a regular writer for www.lettertogod.net. Visit Letter to God to leave a Letter to your God, add to the Dream Book, view self help Articles or submit your own articles. helper@lettertogod.net
"I don't believe in God. I believe in something, just not in God".
When questioned about their belief in God, a lot people seem to have a very narrow view of what God is supposed to be, inextricably linked to organised religion. When they cannot reconcile that narrow view with their own belief system they state that they do not believe in God and therefore have no relationship with the divine. That relationship may still be desired, as it could bring security, unconditional love, support at times of need and a sense of belonging, but it would constitute a lie to oneself and can therefore not be maintained. Many who claim they are non-believers however, are still left with the feeling that there is something bigger than ourselves, something they would like to connect to at some level, just not within the traditional context of organised religion.
As I see it, there are many ways to approach the concept of God and organised religion is just one of them.
Organised religion generally poses the personal God, usually male, an omnipotent (all powerful) being who rules the world and who, by allowing human beings the freedom of choice, also allows the existence of His Antagonist, the Devil. This God wants His subjects to come to Him of their own free will, but when they don't, they will spend eternity in the flames of Hell. There is only one life and it must be lived by God's rules. Within Christianity, there are ways of purging sins, through confession and true repentance, in which case an officially assigned representative of God can grant you forgiveness and cleanse your soul. If you can not get access to such a representative of God before you die, tough luck, you die and go to Hell whether you are repentant or not. Up until very recently, the Catholic church did not allow stillborn babies into heaven, they had to stay in 'Limbo' for eternity because they were not baptised before death. ('Limbo' is a place just outside Heaven, away from Hell but also away from the presence of God.)
I personally believe that this is a very limited view of God. This God is not omnipotent; there seem to be enormous shortcomings to his power if he is incapable to grant forgiveness to a repenting soul, without an intervening human representative (e.g. priest) acting on his behalf. This God is not omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time) either: he is absent in Limbo, absent in Hell for eternity and absent until access has been granted through baptism, again performed by an officially assigned human representative. Choice is relative, here: 'you do as I say, or you will burn in Hell for eternity'. After death, this God refuses shelter to anyone who has not abided by his rules; the concept of forgiveness is pretty short lived. Access to heaven is, up to a certain point, simply luck of the draw. It is not granted on the basis of your contribution to the world as a caring, loving, non-judgemental human being, who is never afraid of helping out other people, and making right and just decisions, rather than ones driven by personal gain. This may play a part, but not the most important one. Access to heaven is gained mainly by baptism, worship on Sunday, by praying and reading your bible, by telling God you think he's great, you love him and can't live without him. So if you happen to be born in a place that has never heard of this God; if you die alone; if you cannot get access to one of those representatives before you die, who can grant forgiveness for your sins and cleanse your soul; if you die angry with God because you have been hurt and abused, you are not allowed to be with God. You go to Hell.
Life in this context is not a process of growing: it is a cruel and unfair test, with most people in this world seriously disadvantaged, or even incapable of passing, through circumstances beyond their control.
Organised religions are frameworks, encompassing theological theories about the nature of the divine, usually represented as absolute truths, and rules about approaching and incorporating the divine into one's life, usually predicting dire consequences if these rules are not adhered to. The most important thing to understand about organised religions is that they have to keep their institutions alive and as such it is within their best interest to stipulate worship through their facilities, using their people. The need to be needed in order to survive must prevail, because otherwise, they will cease to exist. That is why giving money to religious institutions, in collects or as gifts, is considered a divine duty, why one can only receive true salvation through the institutions and why members are ordered to keep coming back, every morning in the past, and now, as most congregations are waning, at least once a week. Institutions, at their best, do wonderful things. Through them, wonderful people help other people in wonderful ways. But they remain organisations whose belief structures and divine rules are coloured by a need to survive.
I believe that the problem many people seem to have with the concept of God could be due to a failure of organised religions to move with the times, theologically. Many individual representatives of the churches do not subscribe to the idea of hell as they used to, nor to the idea of God as a vengeful, punishing force. Many even acknowledge the possibility of a relationship with God outside the confounds of church and traditional worship, but in essence, the churches still put forward an imposing patriarchal society in all aspects of religious life: a personal male God, benevolent father, head of the household, prescribing a framework of morals and lifestyle rules and restrictions as well as regular worship within religious institutions. The feminine is still entirely absent from the divine. Mary has never been granted divinity; she may be the 'mother of God' but she is still considered human. The archangels are male; Jesus is male. Nobody in this divine family has ever had sex because sex, although quite necessary for the survival of the human race (we can not all achieve 'immaculate conceptions'), is still dirty and, at the heart of it, sinful. At the heart of most religious life is still worship, rather than love for one another in day to day life. Why would God care so much about being worshipped and thanked all the time? Does he have such a big ego?
Monotheism is the existence of a single omnipresent, omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent deity, or God. It is claimed that Christianity is monotheistic, but there are some problems with this claim. In practice we do not see an omnipotent and omnipresent God, as discussed earlier in this article. His omniscience is questionable also. Firstly, his perspective is limited by his sex: he is male and therefore lacks female perspective. (Although in the Old Testament this view of God as solely male is contradicted, e.g. Gen 5.1-2: ... When God created man, he made them in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.) Secondly, there are many occasions in the Old Testament where God asks questions in order to get answers, e.g Job 1.7 (To Satan:) "Whence have you come?" (God does not know where Satan came from) or: Gen 18.26: And the Lord said, "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake." (God does not know how many righteous people live in Sodom). But even if we are to take the bible as written by fallible people, rather than God himself, it is still hard to sustain the notion that this God is truly monotheistic.
So why is this an issue at all? Well, it is an issue because there is an inherent contradiction in organised religion. We are told on the one hand that this God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, but on the other hand, the entire frameworks prescribed to us by organised religions tell us that he is none of these things. The theology limits God's power, God's understanding, God's knowledge, God's reach. The fact is, that many people who claim they 'don't believe in God but believe in something' believe in God as something much more than that.
True monotheism, which Christianity claims to be but is not, encompasses a God that is truly omniscient, neither male nor female, and at the same time, both; a God that is truly omnipotent, who controls all and yet nothing because the world would run this way because there is no other way; a God that is omnipresent, who is all things and yet, nothing, because the very nature of being is already finite. This God is past, present and future, and all at the same time because this God is time and beyond time. This God is so all encompassing that we cannot escape it, no matter how 'bad' we are or how much we deny its existence. To deny this God would be to deny ourselves. This God does not need or demand worship, nor praise or prayer, because this God has no ego. Rather, we are the ones that need prayer, in order to connect back with what is true. Connecting to this God would mean connecting with what needs to be, to embrace life. Hell is merely an illusion, a state of denial, an absence, rather than an active force of being. Hell does not truly exists because God is omnipresent and therefore a place without God can not exist.
So in answer to the main question: does God exist, we might say this: the concept of God as an all-encompassing thing, or life itself in all shapes and forms, embraces any view of the world around us. There is no limit to what you can believe or disbelieve. We know so little and we are so little, in this world. One might say that angels and ghosts and fairies do not exist, because there is no 'real' proof. There is even less proof that they don't exist. One might say that reincarnation is just an inability to accept that when we're dead, that's it, we're really not that important. On the other hand, not believing it might just be an excuse not to learn what we need to learn, because if we don't, we will have to in the next life. The existential doubt of the existence of God has always struck me as slightly odd. The sun rises every day, doesn't it? You are breathing, aren't you? Do you deny the existence of the universe, just because we can not measure it, just because we do not understand?
So what about that relationship with God? How can you connect to all these things at the same time, and why would you bother if you don't believe in the grey man on the cloud?
Well, the answer is simple. You don't have a relationship with God for God, that would be ridiculous. You have a relationship with God or 'the divine' for you, in order to find a moment of peace and tranquillity and in order to feel connected and in control in a very demanding, stressful world. Addressing God in those brief moments does not automatically mean you believe God is a man on a cloud. You could pray, you could talk to God when no one can hear you, write a letter to God, do yoga, meditate, take some quiet time of contemplation. You won't be lying to yourself. You can have your theological cake and eat it. And at its best, maybe that is what organised religion manages to offer to some of us: an almostm tangible relationship with something that is ultimately beyond definition.
Author BioMargriet Struik is a regular writer for www.lettertogod.net. Visit Letter to God to leave a Letter to your God, add to the Dream Book, view self help Articles or submit your own articles. helper@lettertogod.net
Friday, December 16, 2011
Reality Show Mania...Tired Yet?
By: LA Williams
Now that we've moved well into our second decade of reality television, I suppose (perhaps) I should get use to the fact that they are here to stay.
What (exactly) is our enormous fascination with these oversexed, narcissists? Is it the glamorous lives they pretend to have? Or, the unfettered manner in which they brazenly hurt others? Do we secretly wish our lives to be as exciting and drama-filled as the Real Housewives of where-ever? And, why can we not get enough of Jersey Shore or Celebrity Apprentice?
Well, I think the answer is quit simple. The reason we love these "tell and show it like it is shows" is they are a latent, passive-aggressive, sub-conscience response to the flowering, everything is perfect images that corporate America inundates us with, while convincing us to spend money we do not have on products we do not need. I know that was a run-on sentence, but I don't care....this is reality, remember? So, follow me on this one, please. If I have to see one more car commercial where the 20's something wife, buys the 20's something husband a NEW CAR for Christmas, I'm going to puke. I mean, c'mon! Who the heck has that kind of money sitting around, at the oh-so mature age of 28? Or, what about the middle-class couple that decides to have a sit-down dinner at McDonald's....pleeeassee..that's drive-thru all the way. The true McDonald's, sit-down people are the over-stressed, slightly over-weight moms with two too many kids on her hands.
What about the movies? Every "romantic comedy" portray these people whom possess all the money they'll ever need, and the only problem they have is that they have failed to realize their one true love, all along, is their best friend (of the opposite sex). Or the dramas, whereby the couple lives in this upscale, middle-income home, while the woman is a stay-at-home mom, and the husband is an account executive. C'mon, man!!! "How the hell do they afford that lifestyle on an account exec's salary?"
Do you see where I'm coming from? Do you see it? Corporate America works hard to make us long for certain (mostly unattainable) lifestyles. This leads to a multitude of personal finance problems that I'll save for another discussion. But, more to this point, leaves us secretly desiring more raunchy images (i.e. reality television). I mean, let's face it...it's not like the libraries are flooding with patrons. Thanks, Ben Franklin, but No thanks, says the American public...lol.
Until, we decide that maybe these cell phone (robots) aren't that important and decide that dinner (for the family) is at six o'clock sharp, our society will continue to spiral into this weird false reality of butterfly days and dragon nights.
Now that we've moved well into our second decade of reality television, I suppose (perhaps) I should get use to the fact that they are here to stay.
What (exactly) is our enormous fascination with these oversexed, narcissists? Is it the glamorous lives they pretend to have? Or, the unfettered manner in which they brazenly hurt others? Do we secretly wish our lives to be as exciting and drama-filled as the Real Housewives of where-ever? And, why can we not get enough of Jersey Shore or Celebrity Apprentice?
Well, I think the answer is quit simple. The reason we love these "tell and show it like it is shows" is they are a latent, passive-aggressive, sub-conscience response to the flowering, everything is perfect images that corporate America inundates us with, while convincing us to spend money we do not have on products we do not need. I know that was a run-on sentence, but I don't care....this is reality, remember? So, follow me on this one, please. If I have to see one more car commercial where the 20's something wife, buys the 20's something husband a NEW CAR for Christmas, I'm going to puke. I mean, c'mon! Who the heck has that kind of money sitting around, at the oh-so mature age of 28? Or, what about the middle-class couple that decides to have a sit-down dinner at McDonald's....pleeeassee..that's drive-thru all the way. The true McDonald's, sit-down people are the over-stressed, slightly over-weight moms with two too many kids on her hands.
What about the movies? Every "romantic comedy" portray these people whom possess all the money they'll ever need, and the only problem they have is that they have failed to realize their one true love, all along, is their best friend (of the opposite sex). Or the dramas, whereby the couple lives in this upscale, middle-income home, while the woman is a stay-at-home mom, and the husband is an account executive. C'mon, man!!! "How the hell do they afford that lifestyle on an account exec's salary?"
Do you see where I'm coming from? Do you see it? Corporate America works hard to make us long for certain (mostly unattainable) lifestyles. This leads to a multitude of personal finance problems that I'll save for another discussion. But, more to this point, leaves us secretly desiring more raunchy images (i.e. reality television). I mean, let's face it...it's not like the libraries are flooding with patrons. Thanks, Ben Franklin, but No thanks, says the American public...lol.
Until, we decide that maybe these cell phone (robots) aren't that important and decide that dinner (for the family) is at six o'clock sharp, our society will continue to spiral into this weird false reality of butterfly days and dragon nights.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Is Charles, the Prince of Wales, fit to be king?
By: Reed Oxman 
Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor was named at his birth on the 14th of November 1948. Charles, the eldest child and son of Queen Elizabeth II of England, Great Britain, Wales, and all Territories, is the current heir to the British throne. Born to Elizabeth and Prince Philip (Philip Mountbatten of the royal family of Greece) in 1948, a year after the young royals wedding, and four years before Elizabeth became Queen with the unfortunate death of her father, the reigning King of England.
Charles was ordained Prince of Wales in 1958, serving as a pilot and commander in the Royal Navy from 1971-76. In 1981 he married Lady Diana Spencer. Diana, known as the "Peoples' Princess", died in 1997 in a high-speed car chase in Paris, France. Prior to Diana's death, Diana was named Princess of Wales and became a royal in her own right. Diana was soon stripped of Her Royal Highness title when the royal couple separated in 1992. They divorced in 1996. The royal union did produce an heir and "a spare", Prince William (Born in 1982) and Prince Henry (also called Harry, Born in 1984).
After Diana's death, Charles officially acknowledged having had a lengthy clandestine affair/relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles. Their relationship continued throughout his entire royal marriage to Diana Spencer. Charles and Camilla met in the early 1970s, becoming friends, and later romantic partners. Due to the pressure to marry a woman who could bear him heirs, Charles married Diana, while Camilla (or Dog face as she was affectionately known) married Army Captain Andrew Parker Bowles in 1973.
After Diana's death in 1997, Parker-Bowles became recognized as Charles steady companion and partner. Buckingham Palace advisors held many a meeting concerning Parker Bowles eventual role should it become a fact to deal with if, unfortunately, Charles would become king. Amid much public chatter concerning the propriety of their relationship, or the lack of it, the two were married in a civil ceremony in London on the 9th of April 2005. Their non-religious union was blessed the same day in a ceremony at St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle, attended by only the royal family, relatives, and very close friends from both the groom's and brides families.
Queen Elizabeth II gave Parker-Bowles the HRH Title of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall. Why an obscure place like Cornwall? Well, One of Charles's many titles is the Duke of Cornwall. Under no circumstances, according to British Law, will Camilla ever become Queen Camilla. Such a concern has materialized when Charles, the Prince of Wales and the current Heir to the British Throne, married Camilla, the once mistress and now wife of Charles.
When you poll the British Citizens on the original Question: Should Charles become King, if Elizabeth II were to step down or, God forbid, suddenly pass away. The various answers that you could potentially hear are as numerous as the number of British Citizens that were polled. Now, having a better understand of the Royal Life of Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor, what might be your opinion if asked?
Author BioReed Oxman, the author of the above, is also creator and owner of the best place to purchase your needed Travel accessories electronics. Born and raised in California, he attended UC Berkeley Undergraduate, UC Los Angeles Medical School of Medicine and became Board Certified in Emergency Medicine and Pain Management.
Is Martial Arts Street Effective??
Is Martial Arts Street Effctive?
By: Norm Bettencourt
The topic of how effective traditional martial arts is in today's world as a way of protecting oneself is still a very sensitive issue to a lot of martial artists. What is even more sensitive is the issue of how realistic and street effective is the newer styles that have come out since UFC/PRIDE have come into the picture. I am a Registered Black Belt & have nothing against the martial arts and have also studied styles such as Pankration. I know that the techniques I have learned in the dojo should stay in the dojo because they will only work there, that also goes with styles such as the "modern day or reality based systems" they are for sport only.
I work as a bouncer/bodyguard & also teach tactical self defense. Many of my students are black belts or have trained under reality based systems & have learned the hard way that what they learned in the ring or dojo is not street effective. Their common question is why didn't their system work? Part of the reason is that if a rule or law is applied to a system it will subconsciously hinder you when your adrenaline takes over in combat. There are no rules in the streets your mind should not have to sensor or think can I do this to beat this person? We respond exactly the same way that we train.
There is no time to switch gears from sport to tactical. If you are training and your coach or sensei says can't hit their or no contact to the eyes your mind will remember that and store it for future reference. Your self defense system should take into account your environment as well. Can you kick your attacker in the small space your in? Can you balance yourself while performing a technique on the icy sidewalk? If you grapple with him what if he has friends coming around, what do you do then? Street fighting or tactical self-defense should be in the simplest form of fighting. You don't have time to play a chess game, like you would see in a UFC match. Time is not on your side in a street confrontation nor are rules or morals. What we can learn from the UFC or mixed martial arts events when it comes to reality fighting is if it has rules of what not to do, do those things in a street fight because its got to be effective.
Norm Bettencourt is the creator of TACT Self Defense which specializes in combat management tactics for mind, body & spirit.
Visit: "http://www.tactselfdefense.com/%22%3ETact Self Defense
By: Norm Bettencourt
The topic of how effective traditional martial arts is in today's world as a way of protecting oneself is still a very sensitive issue to a lot of martial artists. What is even more sensitive is the issue of how realistic and street effective is the newer styles that have come out since UFC/PRIDE have come into the picture. I am a Registered Black Belt & have nothing against the martial arts and have also studied styles such as Pankration. I know that the techniques I have learned in the dojo should stay in the dojo because they will only work there, that also goes with styles such as the "modern day or reality based systems" they are for sport only.
I work as a bouncer/bodyguard & also teach tactical self defense. Many of my students are black belts or have trained under reality based systems & have learned the hard way that what they learned in the ring or dojo is not street effective. Their common question is why didn't their system work? Part of the reason is that if a rule or law is applied to a system it will subconsciously hinder you when your adrenaline takes over in combat. There are no rules in the streets your mind should not have to sensor or think can I do this to beat this person? We respond exactly the same way that we train.
There is no time to switch gears from sport to tactical. If you are training and your coach or sensei says can't hit their or no contact to the eyes your mind will remember that and store it for future reference. Your self defense system should take into account your environment as well. Can you kick your attacker in the small space your in? Can you balance yourself while performing a technique on the icy sidewalk? If you grapple with him what if he has friends coming around, what do you do then? Street fighting or tactical self-defense should be in the simplest form of fighting. You don't have time to play a chess game, like you would see in a UFC match. Time is not on your side in a street confrontation nor are rules or morals. What we can learn from the UFC or mixed martial arts events when it comes to reality fighting is if it has rules of what not to do, do those things in a street fight because its got to be effective.
Norm Bettencourt is the creator of TACT Self Defense which specializes in combat management tactics for mind, body & spirit.
Visit: "http://www.tactselfdefense.com/%22%3ETact Self Defense
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Gingrich: Poor kids don't work, only get cash illegally
Listening to Mr. Gingrich makes me sad. Don't you love whenever "rich-people" give ridiculous advice to the poor and make it seem like if only the "poor" would get off their lazy asses, they could earn wealth tomorrow? Oooh, if life were that simple......
Fact of the matter is there seems to be some covert-systematic methodology to maintaining the status-quo, whereby rich people get richer, and poor people must kill each other for scraps. Or, is it just me? Not to preach to the crowd, but why are corporations reporting record earnings, while unemployment lingers between 9-10%? Is that the President's fault? I don't think so.... He can't hire people to work for Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, CitiBank, or any other wealthy corporation.
Mr. Gingrich seems to be very opinionated when it comes to putting 9 and 10 year old children to work, as janitors (and for a public entity)... I think he forgot that school janitors are paid by tax payer dollars, and the last time I checked, the republicans were working steadfast to decrease the budgets for education.... Remember? Remember how they labeled the Department of Education as discretionary spending? So, where is this extra funding for children's salaries going to come from, Mr. Gingrich? I guess it's ok to pay that poor kid to clean a toilet at school, but not ok for his/her school to have the latest technology or something that exponentiates is education?!
Let's get real, in America. Or, is it too late? If this country were to meet a fate similar to the Great Roman Empire, it won't be as a result of outside, perceived-terrorism.... It will be through a steady rot from the inside-out.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)