# What do the Saints think of Yoga?



## kvanlaan

This morning, I came in from chores and was sitting here thinking of some Christian friends of mine and others who take 'hot yoga' (doing yoga in a room that's 40C so you sweat buckets and can stretch further), among other kinds of yoga. As it is a Hindu religious practise, I can't see why Christians would want to partake in it. However, it would seem that the type my friends participate in is divorced (for the most part) from sacred Hindu texts, though I believe the whole 'flow of energy' nonsense is still there. I am not sure how to approach it with these friends, though I think it will likely fall under 'Christian liberty' to them. Opinions? Suggestions? Well-meant criticisms of my position?


----------



## ChristianTrader

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; The Subtle Body — Should Christians Practice Yoga?

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; Yahoo, Yoga, and Yours Truly

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; Help from Hindu Quarters — The New York Times on “Take Back Yoga”


----------



## Pergamum

I think it is possible to "do yoga" meaning the exercises without imbibing any philosophy, just the same as many practice Karate without the philosophical component..... or wrestling or any number of countless other sports without pagan Greek thought-forms behind it.


----------



## MarieP

I agree with Dr. Mohler, but I also recently have heard of some good and godly brethren who "do yoga" without all the other garbage- which, as Dr. Mohler (as well as some Hindu experts on yoga) say, isn't actually yoga. I think it depends on what people mean by yoga.

Interesting point about Karate, Perg


----------



## Pergamum

MarieP: 

The accepted definition of Yoga is one that allows for the exercise without the garbage. Dr. Mohler can try to limit the definition, and he is right about the origins, but the present usage of the term "yoga" already allows what I advocate, good physical exercise without the garbage (listen to Dr. Mohler sermons while you stretch perhaps).

I see no one in an uproar about the days of the week despite an obvious Norse pagan taint (Wodin's Day, Freya's Day, etc).


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Can Everyone Benefit from Yoga? - Hinduism Today Magazine

_"Conclusion: It is naive to take yoga as a physical system of exercise devoid of its philosophical, spiritual and cultural underpinnings. This profound spiritual discipline is ineluctably rooted in Hindu scripture. It is a path of religious practice on all levels, and its goal is enlightenment, Self Realization. It may not be an advisable practice for followers of religions in which unitive mysticism is unacceptable, as stated by the religious leaders of such faiths. Those who are affiliated with liberal religions and those with no formal religious ties can definitely benefit from the practice of yoga, physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. However, a caution to all who follow the path of yoga: be prepared to become gradually more and more aware of the unity of all that exists!" _


----------



## Ivan

Drew Brees says it helps his flexibilty.


----------



## Scottish Lass

The Hindus may say that it cannot be divorced from its origins, but it certainly can when only done as a stretching/flexibility regimen. I took at a local gym for a while--nothing mystical about it, just a dozen women rounding out our exercise schedule just like we took step and circuit classes. I guarantee you few in the room save the instructor and me (and maybe not her!) knew the origins or cared since it wasn't part of the class. No "Clear your mind, empty it of thoughts" nonsense, for example.


----------



## Skyler

I like the peach kind. Already mixed, not the fruit-on-the-bottom type.


----------



## calgal

Pergamum said:


> I think it is possible to "do yoga" meaning the exercises without imbibing any philosophy, just the same as many practice Karate without the philosophical component..... or wrestling or any number of countless other sports without pagan Greek thought-forms behind it.


 
Be selective about teachers and classes and if all else fails, do what a JW I knew did: walk out when they start chanting.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Pergamum said:


> MarieP:
> 
> The accepted definition of Yoga is one that allows for the exercise without the garbage. Dr. Mohler can try to limit the definition, and he is right about the origins, but the present usage of the term "yoga" already allows what I advocate, good physical exercise without the garbage (listen to Dr. Mohler sermons while you stretch perhaps).
> 
> I see no one in an uproar about the days of the week despite an obvious Norse pagan taint (Wodin's Day, Freya's Day, etc).


 
Either you say that just stretching is not yoga or you have to give a new term to "real" yoga. You can't have two different things called by the same term without confusion. Language is supposed to reflect reality not what we wish was the case.

CT


----------



## Pergamum

Hermonta: 

Yoga is the common term to designate a system of stretching and exercises. People commonly use the term to refer to the exercise only without any philosophy attached to it. It is common and accepted. Most vocabulary has a semantic range, and some words have a wider semantic range than others. 

My broader use of the term yoga is perfectly cromulent.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Pergamum said:


> cromulent



Okay, that's the second use in 24 hours on here of a fairly obscure word--what gives?


----------



## Skyler

ChristianTrader said:


> Either you say that just stretching is not yoga or you have to give a new term to "real" yoga. You can't have two different things called by the same term without confusion. Language is supposed to reflect reality not what we wish was the case.
> 
> CT



Nonetheless, language is never without some ambiguity. You can call both ostrich and fish eggs "eggs". That reflects reality; we're not saying they're the same exact thing, we're saying they're similar or in the same class of things.


----------



## kvanlaan

Pergitude, your attempt at cromulence is discombobulated by your own protubrent efforts at it. If there are named poses involved in your exercise class that correspond to documented yoga poses, then it is yoga yoga (read: _verdomde_ orthodox yoga). If it is just stretching, then it is 'yoga' (air quotes must be used to describe it).

Pergy's been eating too many taro root donuts. That's why he's looking so cromulent these days.


----------



## Pergamum

Ha ha, Pergitude...that's a new one...... what happened to Pergalicious? I like Pergatory myself...or The Perginator.


I prefer Eastern Orthodox Yoga myself over yoga yoga (_verdomde_ orthodox yoga...whatever verdomde means)... but some of the poses would be hard with the long beards and canes and flowing robes. 

Also, after ascending up the stairs on his knees in the Vatican to do penance, Luther could have used some gentle yoga to ease his poor aches and pains. But after a few years of stout ale, the downward dog got increasiongly harder for the reformer as he put on poundage in the cromulencity of his older age. 

If Geneva knew about yoga back in the day, Calvin could have adopted the TULIP position instead of the Lotus position of his eastern counter-parts.


----------



## au5t1n

MarieP said:


> I think it depends on what people mean by yoga.



Me too. I would prefer if Christians would stay away from it altogether, but when a family member tells me she's doing yoga and she just means she's stretching...well, I'll pick my battles. Not going to gripe about stretching.


----------



## Skyler

Pergamum said:


> I prefer Eastern Orthodox Yoga myself over yoga yoga (verdomde orthodox yoga...whatever verdomde means)... but some of the poses would be hard with the long beards and canes and flowing robes.



That sounds like some kind of action movie featuring Buddhist monks or something. =)


----------



## Pergamum

Jonathan:

Hmmm...full contact yoga? Yoga-fu? Yoga-jitsu?


----------



## kvanlaan

Pergitude: Pergy with attitude
Pergatorium: place to purge when you overdose on Pergy 
verdomde: damned or damnable


----------



## Skyler

kvanlaan said:


> verdomde: damned or damnable



Is it more polite to use verdomde?


----------



## kvanlaan

It makes it less offensive because it is in another language (but that's just weaseling out of it). Basically, the meaning is that one is heathen yoga and one is stretching.


----------



## Skyler

kvanlaan said:


> It makes it less offensive because it is in another language (but that's just weaseling out of it). Basically, the meaning is that one is heathen yoga and one is stretching.



So, I shouldn't use it as a synonym for "displeasing" or "annoying"?


----------



## Steve Curtis

He's smarter than the average bear


----------



## Curt

This saint doesn't think that you can separate the yoga from the philosophy. Feel free to disagree.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Curt said:


> This saint doesn't think that you can separate the yoga from the philosophy. Feel free to disagree.



What if one doesn't even know the philosophy?


----------



## ChristianTrader

Skyler said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you say that just stretching is not yoga or you have to give a new term to "real" yoga. You can't have two different things called by the same term without confusion. Language is supposed to reflect reality not what we wish was the case.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, language is never without some ambiguity. You can call both ostrich and fish eggs "eggs". That reflects reality; we're not saying they're the same exact thing, we're saying they're similar or in the same class of things.
Click to expand...


At some point you are going to have to add some sort of qualifier. Real vs. Fake, American vs. Hindu, etc. Also if it is simply stretching why does one still want to call it Yoga?

---------- Post added at 08:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------




Scottish Lass said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This saint doesn't think that you can separate the yoga from the philosophy. Feel free to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if one doesn't even know the philosophy?
Click to expand...

 
The effects of various activities do not require one to be cognizant of them to be effectual.

CT


----------



## VictorBravo

Scottish Lass said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> cromulent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that's the second use in 24 hours on here of a fairly obscure word--what gives?
Click to expand...

 
I noticed that too and ended up having to google its etymology because it is not in my 1928 Webster's or even in my "modern" 1977 Webster's.

Turns out it is a neologism created for the Simpson's TV show circa 1996. Just one more confirmation of my cultural illiteracy. All I know about the Simpson's I learned from Wikipedia . . . .


----------



## Curt

ChristianTrader said:


> The effects of various activities do not require one to be cognizant of them to be effectual.



What he said.


----------



## TimV

We should all do it for a year and then exchange views.


----------



## satz

Curt said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The effects of various activities do not require one to be cognizant of them to be effectual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What he said.
Click to expand...


But how can any purely physical activity (stretching or some other exercise) have a spiritual or mental effect on someone?

How is this situation any different from meat offered to idols? The meat (or physical exercise in this case) is not tainted by having been associated with idolatry, if the believer uses it in an environment where the old associations are absent. 

Genuine question.. I am not a yoga supporter by any means.


----------



## Pergamum

Mark, Yes I agree - this is meat offered to idols for the 21st Century it seems.


----------



## cih1355

Go to this link where John MacArthur and another pastor are interviewed about Yoga. It sounds like Yoga is much more than just exercise.

YouTube - John MacArthur on Christian & Yoga


----------



## Scottish Lass

ChristianTrader said:


> The effects of various activities do not require one to be cognizant of them to be effectual.



Could you come up with a common example to describe this? Since I have anecdotal experience with stretching attributed to yoga, but I don't see how it had any negative effect, I'm struggling to see what you're saying. If anything, it was good for my patience because I was expected to work through the moves more slowly than in a step or circuit class.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Scottish Lass said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The effects of various activities do not require one to be cognizant of them to be effectual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you come up with a common example to describe this? Since I have anecdotal experience with stretching attributed to yoga, but I don't see how it had any negative effect, I'm struggling to see what you're saying. If anything, it was good for my patience because I was expected to work through the moves more slowly than in a step or circuit class.
Click to expand...

 
I personally don't have a problem with just the stretching that is common to Yoga exercises. I just wouldn't call it Yoga anymore. As far as examples, I think that various things that we can listen to or watch can have negative or positive effects regardless of us understanding them fully. Here is a link to a youtube clip of a documentary on the power of music YouTube - The Power of Music - Hell's Bells 2 - with Eric Holmberg


----------



## jwithnell

I've done yoga on and off for years, though I've had some internal battles re: the thoughts mentioned here. Some of the self-calming techniques our occupational therapist has given our son is based in the physical practice. I will offer this: yoga has had an overall influence for the better in western athletic practices. Remember bobbing up and down to do stretches back in the day? Remember when stretching was primarily seen as a warm up? Now flexibility and balance are measures for fitness along with strength and endurance.


----------



## Raj

Hello from North India. We don't go for Yoga but for simple exercises of the body. To go to Yoga here, involves physical practices and need to hear the music which our ears wouldn't allow us to listen.


----------



## Skyler

Ought we to avoid modern medicine, since it's based in an atheistic worldview?

The answer is "No", because modern medicine _isn't_ based in an atheistic worldview. All knowledge, all wisdom, all good things are based in the Christian worldview. Anything good or beneficial that other religions have mixed in with their paganism has been stolen from the Christian worldview, right?

Should we avoid the good things God has created simply because unbelievers misuse them? Or should we use those good things as God intended them to be used--in worship of and to glorify Him?


----------



## kvanlaan

> So, I shouldn't use it as a synonym for "displeasing" or "annoying"?



Nope, not unless you're with a group of Dutch sailors.

So far as yoga is concerned, I would see it about as permissable as having a Bible study (good, reformed, Beeke-written) but praying by bowing and touching one's head to the floor, all while making sure you point at Mecca. You are praying to Christ, and that is good, but your actions suggest worship of a different sort, so I would put it off-limits for the believer (and I can do that, since I am the Reformd Pope).


----------



## Mushroom

This thread brings to mind an eighth-grade experience at Taipei American School. I was a completely godless pagan, unchurched and an avowed atheist. Yoga was offered in the study hall as a voluntary excersize by some guru-looking Indian chap in sari and toe-sandals. Being of the hippitude (another cromulent term) bent, I sat in on a session. I was at first aghast, and then incensed, that my American gov't funded school was allowing a religion to be taught within its hallowed religion-free halls. I went and loudly complained to the administration about this violation of the separation of Church and state. I was an arrogant young puke (and now an old one far too often). But at least consistent.

If genuflection is determined to relieve tennis elbow, would we de-romanize it so we could practice it? Just curious.


----------



## Pergamum

Under the rationale for not doing The Stretches Commonly Known as Yoga (SCKAY), the christian would also need to guard against taking karate, playing card games with your kids, and many other activities.


----------



## proregno

Yoga: no.

Yogurt: yes !


----------



## Skyler

Pergamum said:


> Under the rationale for not doing The Stretches Commonly Known as Yoga (SCKAY), the christian would also need to guard against taking karate, playing card games with your kids, and many other activities.



Let's call it "Stretches Ordinarily Known As Yoga (SOKAY)". 

On that note, where exactly does the dispute lie here? Is the disapproval of yoga based upon its pagan _origins_ or its _current use_ by pagans as part of their worship? Where in the Bible do we find a basis for either one?

Also note that the comparison with a Bible study is somewhat inaccurate, because we're not talking about worshipping God using pagan customs. If we bow down to an idol while claiming to pray to the true God, we are committing idolatry--not because other pagans bow down to idols, but because God forbade bowing down to idols.


----------



## Pergamum

SOKAY is okay!


----------



## Marrow Man

> What do the Saints think of Yoga?



I always admired his commitment to the good side of The Force.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Also note that the comparison with a Bible study is somewhat inaccurate, because we're not talking about worshipping God using pagan customs. If we bow down to an idol while claiming to pray to the true God, we are committing idolatry--not because other pagans bow down to idols, but because God forbade bowing down to idols.



Hey man, I'm just praying in a cool direction and praying in a certain way, both as adiaphora as yoga. No idols involved! You fold hands, I bow and touch my forehead to the ground. M'KAY?


----------



## Skyler

kvanlaan said:


> Hey man, I'm just praying in a cool direction and praying in a certain way, both as adiaphora as yoga. No idols involved! You fold hands, I bow and touch my forehead to the ground. M'KAY?



Bowing down... to... Mecca?


----------



## Pergamum

I propose that we as Puritans refuse to accommodate a pagan system of time keeping. We will now only refer to Monday as 2-day, tuesday as 3-day, wednesday as 4-day etc and refuse to mention those pagan Gods Wodin, Freya, Tyr, 

And January will become 1-month, February 2-month so that we must not mention pagan Roman God's or rulers:




> January (Janus's month)
> 
> 
> February (month of Februa)
> 
> 
> March (Mars' month)
> 
> 
> April (Aphrodite's month)
> 
> 
> May (Maia's month)
> 
> 
> June (Juno's month)
> 
> 
> July (Julius Caesar's month)
> 
> 
> August (Augustus Caesar's month)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> September (Septimus month)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> October (month of octo “eight”.) Octavius'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> November (novem month)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> December (decem month)



Februa was a pagan purification ritual, Mar's was the Roman God of War, etc.



Also, karate must go.

We must never eat anything that is purposely halal because such things acknowledge the concept of halal-ism and its underlying religious implications.


----------



## Skyler

Um, Pergy, the Quakers already used that weekday-naming system. Doesn't their mysticism disqualify them?


----------



## JML

Pergamum said:


> I propose that we as Puritans refuse to accommodate a pagan system of time keeping.



I've considered it. It would be very difficult considering how much they are used in the world we live in however. Monday as 2-day would be kind of confusing though. Sounds too much like "today." And yes, I know you were being sarcastic.


----------



## Pergamum

Jonathan, WOW.... thanks for the Quaker info. But I guess also then I cannot eat Quaker oats if they are that mystic. Or corn flakes since they were made by one of the Oneida utopian cult leaders.


I see this as adiaphora. I suppose, however, we could tighten the definition and call what is permitted as "yoga-like stretching" to distinguish it from "Full yoga with associated pagan heresies" or FYWAPH, but if the pull of yoga is still too great, we should forego all exercise whatsoever. 

If foods sacrificed to pagan gods is adiaphora, surely this is as well, we need not be stricter than the Apostle Paul.


----------



## seajayrice

My wife has taught yoga utilizing traditional poses sans the visualization, mantra and general weirdness. It is stretching and breathing, those are good things. As far as I discern, no ill effects for her or her students. My little girls can do the poses too and are comforted knowing they have many lifetimes to learn all they need to know about the practice.


----------



## kvanlaan

They actually use the 1-day 2-day and 1-month 2-month system in China. Apparently the Commies are holier than all y'all.

I just can't see this as adiaphora - you look at what the Hindus say, you look at what Mohler says, and then still say it's adiaphora?


----------



## Skyler

kvanlaan said:


> I just can't see this as adiaphora - you look at what the Hindus say, you look at what Mohler says, and then still say it's adiaphora?



No, I look at what the Bible says, and then I say it's adiaphora. 

If you can't see it as adiaphora, then submit to God and don't do it. Your conscience isn't warning you about it because it hates you. If you are concerned about others doing it, share your concern with them (as you have done here, for which I thank you) and then pray and trust the Holy Spirit to make the matter clear to His children. You don't have to convince them; God is the one who changes hearts.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Skyler said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just can't see this as adiaphora - you look at what the Hindus say, you look at what Mohler says, and then still say it's adiaphora?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I look at what the Bible says, and then I say it's adiaphora.
> 
> If you can't see it as adiaphora, then submit to God and don't do it. Your conscience isn't warning you about it because it hates you. If you are concerned about others doing it, share your concern with them (as you have done here, for which I thank you) and then pray and trust the Holy Spirit to make the matter clear to His children. You don't have to convince them; God is the one who changes hearts.
Click to expand...

 
Do you believe in general revelation? If so do you believe there is anything in general revelation that is not explicitly in the Bible?

CT


----------



## Pergamum

Is a series of stretches without accompanying prayer or philosophy more serious than foods set before idols and sacrificed? 

If the issue of foods offered to idols is counted as adiaphora by Paul, than surely yoga-ish stretching is adiaphora.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Pergamum said:


> Is a series of stretches without accompanying prayer or philosophy more serious than foods set before idols and sacrificed?
> 
> If the issue of foods offered to idols is counted as adiaphora by Paul, than surely yoga-ish stretching is adiaphora.


 
The argument would have to go something along the lines of handling Uranium. It matters not what you think of it, what you wish it to be, it has fatal effects. Nothing in the Bible says it has fatal effects etc. Saying it is just a rock does not change anything. Is that the case here, not sure but no reason to mock the belief that there can be certain problems.

CT


----------



## kvanlaan

> No, I look at what the Bible says, and then I say it's adiaphora.
> 
> If you can't see it as adiaphora, then submit to God and don't do it. Your conscience isn't warning you about it because it hates you. If you are concerned about others doing it, share your concern with them (as you have done here, for which I thank you) and then pray and trust the Holy Spirit to make the matter clear to His children. You don't have to convince them; God is the one who changes hearts.



Agreed - and I think that Mohler represents a clear Biblical position on it, and the Hindus show us the true meaning of what we're doing while 'stretching' in the lotus position.

It is indeed the HS that makes it clear and changes hearts, but to say that I tried to 'witness' to a coworker because I once invited him to my church is simply not enough. If I truly feel that this thing is evil and feel that it is not for believers, I will spend a lot more effort and time on making that clear to other believers, no matter how stubborn they want to be. It is love for the brethren and a fear for their souls that ultimately drives the conversation, not whether or not I can 'win' a thread.


----------



## Scottish Lass

ChristianTrader said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a series of stretches without accompanying prayer or philosophy more serious than foods set before idols and sacrificed?
> 
> If the issue of foods offered to idols is counted as adiaphora by Paul, than surely yoga-ish stretching is adiaphora.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument would have to go something along the lines of handling Uranium. It matters not what you think of it, what you wish it to be, it has fatal effects. Nothing in the Bible says it has fatal effects etc. Saying it is just a rock does not change anything. Is that the case here, not sure but no reason to mock the belief that there can be certain problems.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

 
Can we analogize something that is physically dangerous with something that is spiritually dangerous? I'm not sure we can. We all agree uranium is dangerous regardless of what we know about it. But if I know nothing of the origins and/or spiritual overlay that Hindus put on certain movements, I fail to see how putting my hands and feet on the floor at the same time is spiritually dangerous. It may be an unattractive posture, and not one for mixed company, but mysticism doesn't magically seep into my soul because I've assumed that position.

We critique the idea of some bookstores and whatnot for taking a rock or a t-shirt and emblazoning a Christian slogan on it as if that makes the item or owner more Christian, etc. The ability to stretch my body existed before the Hindus did and certainly before they systematized a pattern of movements.


----------



## Pergamum

kvanlaan said:


> No, I look at what the Bible says, and then I say it's adiaphora.
> 
> If you can't see it as adiaphora, then submit to God and don't do it. Your conscience isn't warning you about it because it hates you. If you are concerned about others doing it, share your concern with them (as you have done here, for which I thank you) and then pray and trust the Holy Spirit to make the matter clear to His children. You don't have to convince them; God is the one who changes hearts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed - and I think that Mohler represents a clear Biblical position on it, and the Hindus show us the true meaning of what we're doing while 'stretching' in the lotus position.
> 
> It is indeed the HS that makes it clear and changes hearts, but to say that I tried to 'witness' to a coworker because I once invited him to my church is simply not enough. If I truly feel that this thing is evil and feel that it is not for believers, I will spend a lot more effort and time on making that clear to other believers, no matter how stubborn they want to be. It is love for the brethren and a fear for their souls that ultimately drives the conversation, not whether or not I can 'win' a thread.
Click to expand...

 
Thank you for your concern and love for your brethren.


----------



## Skyler

ChristianTrader said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just can't see this as adiaphora - you look at what the Hindus say, you look at what Mohler says, and then still say it's adiaphora?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I look at what the Bible says, and then I say it's adiaphora.
> 
> If you can't see it as adiaphora, then submit to God and don't do it. Your conscience isn't warning you about it because it hates you. If you are concerned about others doing it, share your concern with them (as you have done here, for which I thank you) and then pray and trust the Holy Spirit to make the matter clear to His children. You don't have to convince them; God is the one who changes hearts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in general revelation? If so do you believe there is anything in general revelation that is not explicitly in the Bible?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

 
Yes, there is. Thermodynamics, for example.

However, I also believe that Scripture is sufficient for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).

It is thermodynamics that enables us to create guns; it is Scripture that forbids us from murder.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------




ChristianTrader said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a series of stretches without accompanying prayer or philosophy more serious than foods set before idols and sacrificed?
> 
> If the issue of foods offered to idols is counted as adiaphora by Paul, than surely yoga-ish stretching is adiaphora.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument would have to go something along the lines of handling Uranium. It matters not what you think of it, what you wish it to be, it has fatal effects. Nothing in the Bible says it has fatal effects etc. Saying it is just a rock does not change anything. Is that the case here, not sure but no reason to mock the belief that there can be certain problems.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

 
Or water? Water has fatal effects too. And actually the Bible says that it does.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Thank you for your concern and love for your brethren.



You're welcome.

Here's the thing - I don't think that doing yoga will send you to hell. But I do think that calling yoga adiaphora in light of what was posted by Mohler and what the originators of the practise say about it is just a wee bit untenable. Actually, completely untenable. It is one more invasion of the culture into the Body of Christ that turns us from the purity of the Bible's revelation to God's people and puts us on the broad path, but only just a tiny bit at a time, so that it is hardly recognizable. This strategy is brilliant on the part of the devil and has turned many from the faith (take whatever example you will - look at what creeping feminism and creeping culture did to the CRC). I think the world has enough distractions to turn us from the face of God without heaping on more for the sake of increased flexibility. Go to stretching class. Do calnesthetics. But why choose something like this?

As John Piper says:



> O how jealous I am that you be a Christ-exalting, Bible-saturated, discerning people. For example, I pray that you don’t just sign up for your local Yoga class and not know what you are doing. Yoga is to the body what mantra is to the mouth. They are rooted in the same worldview. If you go to the Minneapolis YWCA website and click on “fitness classes,” there are 22 references to Yoga, including Beginning Yoga and MS Yoga and Youngster Yoga and Youth Dance and Yoga and Yoga for Everybody.
> 
> One explanation says that in the mantra yoga “one has to chant a word or a phrase until he/she transcends mind and emotions. In the process the super conscious is discovered and achieved." Then Yoga itself is described like this:
> 
> Yoga focuses on harmony between mind and body. Yoga derives its philosophy from Indian metaphysical beliefs. The word yoga comes from Sanskrit language and means union or merger. The ultimate aim of this philosophy is to strike a balance between mind and body and attain self-enlightenment. To achieve this, yoga uses movement, breath, posture, relaxation and meditation in order to establish a healthy, lively and balanced approach to life.
> 
> You were born again through the living and abiding word of God. This word is the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified and risen. Don’t fall prey to another gospel. There is no other gospel, and there is no other path to God, or to ultimate well-being, than hearing, understanding and believing the scandalous news of Jesus Christ.



Still adiaphora?


----------



## Pergamum

Kevin, 

I am stepping out of this thread in order to consider this issue further. You obviously have strong convictions about this issue and are concerned that it is a hidden danger - and so I am taking an operational pause to "clear the slate" of my thinking and see if I can sympathize with your view.


----------



## TimV

But what about doing yoga while smoking pot?


----------



## Scottish Lass

kvanlaan said:


> Still adiaphora?



No, what he describes is not adiaphora. The "yoga" classes I've seen/taken bear no resemblance to that. They merely use the physical positions, which was my argument above. Stripped of any mantra, it is just a stretching class, as you advocate. The "teacher" had merely bought an illustrated book of the poses and demonstrated them. I doubt that most classes in most gyms are much different.


----------



## Skyler

kvanlaan said:


> Still adiaphora?



The stretches or the whole package?


----------



## SRoper

Practicing yoga is much more like actually offering meat to idols than eating meat that was once offered to idols. (A more apt analogy would be using a mat once used for yoga--this would be permissible.) Even if the offering of meat becomes an empty ritual that is "just what people do," it is still idolotrous. Yoga, likewise, is an idolotrous worship practice even when attempts have been made to sanitize it. It should be avoided by all Christians.


----------



## Skyler

SRoper said:


> Practicing yoga is much more like actually offering meat to idols than eating meat that was once offered to idols. (A more apt analogy would be using a mat once used for yoga--this would be permissible.) Even if the offering of meat becomes an empty ritual that is "just what people do," it is still idolotrous. Yoga, likewise, is an idolotrous worship practice even when attempts have been made to sanitize it. It should be avoided by all Christians.


 
Please define more precisely what you mean by "practicing yoga".


----------



## ChristianTrader

Scottish Lass said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a series of stretches without accompanying prayer or philosophy more serious than foods set before idols and sacrificed?
> 
> If the issue of foods offered to idols is counted as adiaphora by Paul, than surely yoga-ish stretching is adiaphora.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument would have to go something along the lines of handling Uranium. It matters not what you think of it, what you wish it to be, it has fatal effects. Nothing in the Bible says it has fatal effects etc. Saying it is just a rock does not change anything. Is that the case here, not sure but no reason to mock the belief that there can be certain problems.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we analogize something that is physically dangerous with something that is spiritually dangerous? I'm not sure we can. We all agree uranium is dangerous regardless of what we know about it. But if I know nothing of the origins and/or spiritual overlay that Hindus put on certain movements, I fail to see how putting my hands and feet on the floor at the same time is spiritually dangerous. It may be an unattractive posture, and not one for mixed company, but mysticism doesn't magically seep into my soul because I've assumed that position.
> 
> We critique the idea of some bookstores and whatnot for taking a rock or a t-shirt and emblazoning a Christian slogan on it as if that makes the item or owner more Christian, etc. The ability to stretch my body existed before the Hindus did and certainly before they systematized a pattern of movements.
Click to expand...


I am not trying to say that just stretching is problematic. My issue is the, "I am no longer doing this to an evil deity so all the evil has been neutralized" point of view. Some things are inherently problematic regardless of why you are doing them while others can be done either to no harm or to great good depending various conditions. I do however reserve the right to be suspicious of anything with bad origins. 

CT


----------



## Skyler

ChristianTrader said:


> I am not trying to say that just stretching is problematic. My issue is the, "I am no longer doing this to an evil deity so all the evil has been neutralized" point of view. Some things are inherently problematic regardless of why you are doing them while others can be done either to no harm or to great good depending various conditions.



Do you mean "inherently problematic" in a moral or a physical sense?

If you mean it in a moral sense, then surely we can trust the Bible to be a sufficient guide, can we not?

If you mean it in a physical sense, then why did you just say that you're not saying stretching is problematic?



> I do however reserve the right to be suspicious of anything with bad origins.



But do you leave it at "suspicion", or do you act on the suspicion and compare it with Scripture to see whether it be right or no?


----------



## SRoper

Skyler said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Practicing yoga is much more like actually offering meat to idols than eating meat that was once offered to idols. (A more apt analogy would be using a mat once used for yoga--this would be permissible.) Even if the offering of meat becomes an empty ritual that is "just what people do," it is still idolotrous. Yoga, likewise, is an idolotrous worship practice even when attempts have been made to sanitize it. It should be avoided by all Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please define more precisely what you mean by "practicing yoga".
Click to expand...

 
Sure. I would include everything from the bearded, half-naked yogi meditating in the woods in India to the classes that can be found throughout the West dedicated to holding various yoga positions.


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> Kevin,
> 
> I am stepping out of this thread in order to consider this issue further. You obviously have strong convictions about this issue and are concerned that it is a hidden danger - and so I am taking an operational pause to "clear the slate" of my thinking and see if I can sympathize with your view.


 
This kind of maturity will not be tolerated in the Pilgrims Progress Forum, Perg. It is required that everyone argue their side relentlessly without consideration for other viewpoints. Next time you will be infracted.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Skyler said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to say that just stretching is problematic. My issue is the, "I am no longer doing this to an evil deity so all the evil has been neutralized" point of view. Some things are inherently problematic regardless of why you are doing them while others can be done either to no harm or to great good depending various conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "inherently problematic" in a moral or a physical sense?
> 
> If you mean it in a moral sense, then surely we can trust the Bible to be a sufficient guide, can we not?
> 
> If you mean it in a physical sense, then why did you just say that you're not saying stretching is problematic?
Click to expand...


How do you interpret Paul in 1 Cor. 11, when he talks about nature teaching that long hair and men is a disgrace. To me it looks like an appeal to natural law on something that is not explicitly in Scripture. If you read it otherwise, I would like to hear your thoughts. Besides this, there is the issue of properly examining everything and then applying the explicit and implicit commands of Scripture to it, to see if it is moral.



> I do however reserve the right to be suspicious of anything with bad origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do you leave it at "suspicion", or do you act on the suspicion and compare it with Scripture to see whether it be right or no?
Click to expand...

 
I mean that one has to investigate the issue thoroughly before one can say it is in accordance or not in accordance with Scripture.

CT


----------



## Skyler

SRoper said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Practicing yoga is much more like actually offering meat to idols than eating meat that was once offered to idols. (A more apt analogy would be using a mat once used for yoga--this would be permissible.) Even if the offering of meat becomes an empty ritual that is "just what people do," it is still idolotrous. Yoga, likewise, is an idolotrous worship practice even when attempts have been made to sanitize it. It should be avoided by all Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please define more precisely what you mean by "practicing yoga".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. I would include everything from the bearded, half-naked yogi meditating in the woods in India to the classes that can be found throughout the West dedicated to holding various yoga positions.
Click to expand...

 
This, I think, is where the problem lies--a lack of differentiation between different practices that fall under the same name.

Sex was an idolatrous worship practice for followers of Astaroth. Yet (I hope) you would not say that it should be categorically avoided by all Christians. We can't paint it with such a broad brush; we have to break it down further than that.

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------




ChristianTrader said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to say that just stretching is problematic. My issue is the, "I am no longer doing this to an evil deity so all the evil has been neutralized" point of view. Some things are inherently problematic regardless of why you are doing them while others can be done either to no harm or to great good depending various conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "inherently problematic" in a moral or a physical sense?
> 
> If you mean it in a moral sense, then surely we can trust the Bible to be a sufficient guide, can we not?
> 
> If you mean it in a physical sense, then why did you just say that you're not saying stretching is problematic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you interpret Paul in 1 Cor. 11, when he talks about nature teaching that long hair and men is a disgrace. To me it looks like an appeal to natural law on something that is not explicitly in Scripture. If you read it otherwise, I would like to hear your thoughts. Besides this, there is the issue of properly examining everything and then applying the explicit and implicit commands of Scripture to it, to see if it is moral.
Click to expand...


I think you're equivocating on "disgrace" and "sinful". The two terms are not used synonymously in Scripture. I believe Paul is using an argument from analogy to support the head covering as a symbol of headship; he's not arguing for the sinfulness of long hair on men. (See also his argument from baptism for the dead.)

Yes, we do need to examine the explicit and implicit commands of Scripture. Let's do so. What commands of Scripture apply here?



> I do however reserve the right to be suspicious of anything with bad origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do you leave it at "suspicion", or do you act on the suspicion and compare it with Scripture to see whether it be right or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean that one has to investigate the issue thoroughly before one can say it is in accordance or not in accordance with Scripture.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

 
Good, then we agree on that point. =)


----------



## ChristianTrader

> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to say that just stretching is problematic. My issue is the, "I am no longer doing this to an evil deity so all the evil has been neutralized" point of view. Some things are inherently problematic regardless of why you are doing them while others can be done either to no harm or to great good depending various conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "inherently problematic" in a moral or a physical sense?
> 
> If you mean it in a moral sense, then surely we can trust the Bible to be a sufficient guide, can we not?
> 
> If you mean it in a physical sense, then why did you just say that you're not saying stretching is problematic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you interpret Paul in 1 Cor. 11, when he talks about nature teaching that long hair and men is a disgrace. To me it looks like an appeal to natural law on something that is not explicitly in Scripture. If you read it otherwise, I would like to hear your thoughts. Besides this, there is the issue of properly examining everything and then applying the explicit and implicit commands of Scripture to it, to see if it is moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're equivocating on "disgrace" and "sinful". The two terms are not used synonymously in Scripture. I believe Paul is using an argument from analogy to support the head covering as a symbol of headship; he's not arguing for the sinfulness of long hair on men. (See also his argument from baptism for the dead.)
Click to expand...

I do not have a problem concerning the argument form analogy. The issue I have here is that you seem to be advocating the idea of a violation of natural law that is not in fact sinful. Or to put it another way, "nature says do X, and you do Y, but this is not sinful"? Nature here is the same nature term that is used in Romans 1, correct?


> Yes, we do need to examine the explicit and implicit commands of Scripture. Let's do so. What commands of Scripture apply here?



Next go round, we shall hit here.

CT


----------



## Skyler

ChristianTrader said:


> I do not have a problem concerning the argument form analogy. The issue I have here is that you seem to be advocating the idea of a violation of natural law that is not in fact sinful. Or to put it another way, "nature says do X, and you do Y, but this is not sinful"? Nature here is the same nature term that is used in Romans 1, correct?



I don't think that's what I'm trying to say. What I am saying is that the Bible is a more complete and perfect revelation than natural law, and that it is sufficient, as Paul says, for instruction in righteousness. A moral principle which has to depend on some other foundation is naturally suspect. That's why I suggested we focus on the commands of Scripture.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Skyler said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have a problem concerning the argument form analogy. The issue I have here is that you seem to be advocating the idea of a violation of natural law that is not in fact sinful. Or to put it another way, "nature says do X, and you do Y, but this is not sinful"? Nature here is the same nature term that is used in Romans 1, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what I'm trying to say. What I am saying is that the Bible is a more complete and perfect revelation than natural law, and that it is sufficient, as Paul says, for instruction in righteousness. A moral principle which has to depend on some other foundation is naturally suspect. That's why I suggested we focus on the commands of Scripture.
Click to expand...

 
Why should it be considered suspect? Paul, who wrote the classic passage on the sufficiency of scripture did not seem to have any problem with an appeal to natural law. I would not say that Special Revelation is simply a more complete and perfect revelation (I am not sure how general revelation can be considered less than perfect. Also if it was incomplete then would that not mean that one could have an excuse for unrighteousness?) What General Revelation lacks is what to do once unrighteousness has been done. I would argue that General Revelation/natural law is complementary/the foundation to Special Revelation.

CT


----------



## Skyler

ChristianTrader said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have a problem concerning the argument form analogy. The issue I have here is that you seem to be advocating the idea of a violation of natural law that is not in fact sinful. Or to put it another way, "nature says do X, and you do Y, but this is not sinful"? Nature here is the same nature term that is used in Romans 1, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what I'm trying to say. What I am saying is that the Bible is a more complete and perfect revelation than natural law, and that it is sufficient, as Paul says, for instruction in righteousness. A moral principle which has to depend on some other foundation is naturally suspect. That's why I suggested we focus on the commands of Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be considered suspect? Paul, who wrote the classic passage on the sufficiency of scripture did not seem to have any problem with an appeal to natural law. I would not say that Special Revelation is simply a more complete and perfect revelation (I am not sure how general revelation can be considered less than perfect. Also if it was incomplete then would that not mean that one could have an excuse for unrighteousness?) What General Revelation lacks is what to do once unrighteousness has been done. I would argue that General Revelation/natural law is complementary/the foundation to Special Revelation.
Click to expand...


I don't think this is relevant to the point at hand, unless your conclusion is that there are valid God-given moral principles that are not found in Scripture. Is it?


----------



## ChristianTrader

Skyler said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have a problem concerning the argument form analogy. The issue I have here is that you seem to be advocating the idea of a violation of natural law that is not in fact sinful. Or to put it another way, "nature says do X, and you do Y, but this is not sinful"? Nature here is the same nature term that is used in Romans 1, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what I'm trying to say. What I am saying is that the Bible is a more complete and perfect revelation than natural law, and that it is sufficient, as Paul says, for instruction in righteousness. A moral principle which has to depend on some other foundation is naturally suspect. That's why I suggested we focus on the commands of Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be considered suspect? Paul, who wrote the classic passage on the sufficiency of scripture did not seem to have any problem with an appeal to natural law. I would not say that Special Revelation is simply a more complete and perfect revelation (I am not sure how general revelation can be considered less than perfect. Also if it was incomplete then would that not mean that one could have an excuse for unrighteousness?) What General Revelation lacks is what to do once unrighteousness has been done. I would argue that General Revelation/natural law is complementary/the foundation to Special Revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think this is relevant to the point at hand, unless your conclusion is that there are valid God-given moral principles that are not found in Scripture. Is it?
Click to expand...

 
That is what the appeal to 1 Cor. 11 concerns. Unless you can somehow argue that Paul was the last one that could appeal to nature/created order to base an argument, then I am not sure how you are missing this?

CT


----------



## Skyler

ChristianTrader said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have a problem concerning the argument form analogy. The issue I have here is that you seem to be advocating the idea of a violation of natural law that is not in fact sinful. Or to put it another way, "nature says do X, and you do Y, but this is not sinful"? Nature here is the same nature term that is used in Romans 1, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what I'm trying to say. What I am saying is that the Bible is a more complete and perfect revelation than natural law, and that it is sufficient, as Paul says, for instruction in righteousness. A moral principle which has to depend on some other foundation is naturally suspect. That's why I suggested we focus on the commands of Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be considered suspect? Paul, who wrote the classic passage on the sufficiency of scripture did not seem to have any problem with an appeal to natural law. I would not say that Special Revelation is simply a more complete and perfect revelation (I am not sure how general revelation can be considered less than perfect. Also if it was incomplete then would that not mean that one could have an excuse for unrighteousness?) What General Revelation lacks is what to do once unrighteousness has been done. I would argue that General Revelation/natural law is complementary/the foundation to Special Revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think this is relevant to the point at hand, unless your conclusion is that there are valid God-given moral principles that are not found in Scripture. Is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what the appeal to 1 Cor. 11 concerns. Unless you can somehow argue that Paul was the last one that could appeal to nature/created order to base an argument, then I am not sure how you are missing this?
Click to expand...

 
Doesn't that mean that Scripture is not sufficient for instruction in righteousness?


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Skyler said:


> This, I think, is where the problem lies--a lack of differentiation between different practices that fall under the same name.
> 
> Sex was an idolatrous worship practice for followers of Astaroth. Yet (I hope) you would not say that it should be categorically avoided by all Christians. We can't paint it with such a broad brush; we have to break it down further than that.



I think a better way of thinking about it would be that a type of exercise (yoga) is an idolatrous worship practice for followers of Hinduism, therefore do we need to avoid all forms of exercise? Of course not, but we're not talking about such generalities, but the appropriation of the exact physical form of the worship practice. 

It sounds like, "yes, we dress up with crooked noses and pointed hats, and ride brooms around a bonfire, but don't worry, since we're not actually praying to pagan deities while doing it, it's all harmless fun". I think such mental gymnastics to justify yoga, sans the spiritualism, is naive and dangerous. Even the Hindus get this.


----------



## Bern

Personally my concience would not allow me to do yoga. Also my fat wouldn't permit it!


----------



## ChristianTrader

Skyler said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have a problem concerning the argument form analogy. The issue I have here is that you seem to be advocating the idea of a violation of natural law that is not in fact sinful. Or to put it another way, "nature says do X, and you do Y, but this is not sinful"? Nature here is the same nature term that is used in Romans 1, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what I'm trying to say. What I am saying is that the Bible is a more complete and perfect revelation than natural law, and that it is sufficient, as Paul says, for instruction in righteousness. A moral principle which has to depend on some other foundation is naturally suspect. That's why I suggested we focus on the commands of Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it be considered suspect? Paul, who wrote the classic passage on the sufficiency of scripture did not seem to have any problem with an appeal to natural law. I would not say that Special Revelation is simply a more complete and perfect revelation (I am not sure how general revelation can be considered less than perfect. Also if it was incomplete then would that not mean that one could have an excuse for unrighteousness?) What General Revelation lacks is what to do once unrighteousness has been done. I would argue that General Revelation/natural law is complementary/the foundation to Special Revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think this is relevant to the point at hand, unless your conclusion is that there are valid God-given moral principles that are not found in Scripture. Is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what the appeal to 1 Cor. 11 concerns. Unless you can somehow argue that Paul was the last one that could appeal to nature/created order to base an argument, then I am not sure how you are missing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't that mean that Scripture is not sufficient for instruction in righteousness?
Click to expand...

 
No. If General Revelation is the foundation of/Essential for Understanding Special Revelation then I have no idea how that can be construed as infringing on the sufficiency of Scripture. But let's try a quick question. When did Scripture become sufficient? When Paul wrote Timothy, there was only the OT, correct? Was it sufficient for righteousness for the people living in that time period? Or was sufficiency a new concept that went into effect after the NT was canonized?


----------



## Skyler

We are going rather far afield. If we want to continue discussing the relationship between general and specific revelation, I suggest taking it to another thread. In the mean time, let's try to get back to the subject at hand.

What Scriptural principles apply to yoga?


----------



## seajayrice

Skyler said:


> We are going rather far afield. If we want to continue discussing the relationship between general and specific revelation, I suggest taking it to another thread. In the mean time, let's try to get back to the subject at hand.
> 
> What Scriptural principles apply to yoga?


 
Odd, the same folks that find yoga to be a satanic enjoy hard rock and gangsta rap meters. Go figure.


----------



## SRoper

Skyler said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please define more precisely what you mean by "practicing yoga".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. I would include everything from the bearded, half-naked yogi meditating in the woods in India to the classes that can be found throughout the West dedicated to holding various yoga positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, I think, is where the problem lies--a lack of differentiation between different practices that fall under the same name.
> 
> Sex was an idolatrous worship practice for followers of Astaroth. Yet (I hope) you would not say that it should be categorically avoided by all Christians. We can't paint it with such a broad brush; we have to break it down further than that.
Click to expand...


Intercourse does not have its origin in pagan worship, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Now consider a passage such as Isaiah 30:19-22:

[BIBLE] Isaiah 30:19-22[/BIBLE]

Isn't it a bit radical to defile and scatter the carved figures? Isn't it true that "an idol has no real existence"? Shouldn't we merely stop worshipping them while still appreciating them for their beauty and craftsmanship? Yet scripture teaches that idols are to be regarded as unclean. We are to have nothing to do with them.

The application is clear. We must not merely attempt to strip yoga of its pagan spiritual content and keep what we consider good. We must reject it as altogether unclean.


----------



## Skyler

SRoper said:


> Intercourse does not have its origin in pagan worship, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.



And stretching does?



SRoper said:


> Isn't it a bit radical to defile and scatter the carved figures? Isn't it true that "an idol has no real existence"? Shouldn't we merely stop worshipping them while still appreciating them for their beauty and craftsmanship? Yet scripture teaches that idols are to be regarded as unclean. We are to have nothing to do with them.
> 
> The application is clear. We must not merely attempt to strip yoga of its pagan spiritual content and keep what we consider good. We must reject it as altogether unclean.



I think Paul makes it clear that uncleanness was a facet of the Old Covenant that did not carry over into the New. Meat sacrificed to idols would still be unclean under the regulations of the Old Covenant, would it not?


----------



## SRoper

We aren't talking about stretching in the abstract, we are talking about assuming specific, named postures that are straight from pagan spiritual practices.

Eating meat sacrificed to idols is still generally forbidden. Indeed it is called "pollution" (compare Acts 15:20 with Acts 15:29) which seems an awful lot like "unclean." See also 1 Cor. 10 and Rev. 2:14,20.

Now at the end of 1 Cor. 10, Paul is speaking of those who are so scrupulous that they avoid all meat in the marketplace and all invitations to dine with their pagan neighbors, lest they unknowingly eat something that was offered to an idol. This is not required. However, once it is known that the food was offered to an idol, the Christian is not to partake (1 Cor. 10:28).


----------



## Skyler

SRoper said:


> Eating meat sacrificed to idols is still generally forbidden. Indeed it is called "pollution" (compare Acts 15:20 with Acts 15:29) which seems an awful lot like "unclean." See also 1 Cor. 10 and Rev. 2:14,20.



Do you also believe that the Apostles laid on us "_no greater burden than these requirements:_ that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality"? Because that was part and parcel with the rest of the letter.

Look also at the motivation for the letter in the first place: "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." Is this not what Paul is saying in 1st Corinthians 8? "If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."



SRoper said:


> Now at the end of 1 Cor. 10, Paul is speaking of those who are so scrupulous that they avoid all meat in the marketplace and all invitations to dine with their pagan neighbors, lest they unknowingly eat something that was offered to an idol. This is not required. However, once it is known that the food was offered to an idol, the Christian is not to partake (1 Cor. 10:28).



Right, but _why_ isn't he to partake? Paul explicitly says in verse 29 that it's not for the sake of the Christian's own conscience, but for the sake of the one who informed him.

It seems to me that it makes more sense to say that Paul is talking about actually taking part in sacrificing the meat to the idol. By the same token, he's talking about actually taking part in the Lord's Supper in verse 16, not eating the leftovers.


----------



## Scottish Lass

SRoper said:


> We aren't talking about stretching in the abstract, we are talking about assuming specific, named postures that are straight from pagan spiritual practices.



The postures existed before they were paganized. I liken it to the Christian schlock sold at many religious bookstores---nothing of the Christian faith is imbued when a T-shirt has a Bible verse on it. The person who fills her home with angel figurines may think so, but she's mistaken.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Scottish Lass said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about stretching in the abstract, we are talking about assuming specific, named postures that are straight from pagan spiritual practices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The postures existed before they were paganized. I liken it to the Christian schlock sold at many religious bookstores---nothing of the Christian faith is imbued when a T-shirt has a Bible verse on it. The person who fills her home with angel figurines may think so, but she's mistaken.
Click to expand...


If the postures existed, who was doing them before the pagans did? (Or are you simply saying that one could position themselves in certain fashions before the pagans did it in the worship of their god)?

CT


----------



## Scottish Lass

ChristianTrader said:


> (Or are you simply saying that one could position themselves in certain fashions before the pagans did it in the worship of their god)?



yep


----------



## SRoper

Skyler said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eating meat sacrificed to idols is still generally forbidden. Indeed it is called "pollution" (compare Acts 15:20 with Acts 15:29) which seems an awful lot like "unclean." See also 1 Cor. 10 and Rev. 2:14,20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also believe that the Apostles laid on us "_no greater burden than these requirements:_ that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality"? Because that was part and parcel with the rest of the letter.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I'm not quite following.



> Look also at the motivation for the letter in the first place: "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." Is this not what Paul is saying in 1st Corinthians 8? "If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."



Well, while we may disagree with the reasons for the prohibition, we should agree that the prohibition still stands.



> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now at the end of 1 Cor. 10, Paul is speaking of those who are so scrupulous that they avoid all meat in the marketplace and all invitations to dine with their pagan neighbors, lest they unknowingly eat something that was offered to an idol. This is not required. However, once it is known that the food was offered to an idol, the Christian is not to partake (1 Cor. 10:28).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but _why_ isn't he to partake? Paul explicitly says in verse 29 that it's not for the sake of the Christian's own conscience, but for the sake of the one who informed him.
> 
> It seems to me that it makes more sense to say that Paul is talking about actually taking part in sacrificing the meat to the idol. By the same token, he's talking about actually taking part in the Lord's Supper in verse 16, not eating the leftovers.
Click to expand...


The disagreement is what it means to take part in the sacrifice. Paul says to eat is to partake of the altar (v. 18). He says nothing of actually making the sacrifice. I understand Paul to mean that to simply go to a pagan's house to eat is not unlawful because eating is done to the glory of God. However, if the pagan host announces that this meat is offered to an idol, we abstain. In any case, as I said, the fact that we abstain should not be an issue of contention.



Scottish Lass said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about stretching in the abstract, we are talking about assuming specific, named postures that are straight from pagan spiritual practices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The postures existed before they were paganized. I liken it to the Christian schlock sold at many religious bookstores---nothing of the Christian faith is imbued when a T-shirt has a Bible verse on it. The person who fills her home with angel figurines may think so, but she's mistaken.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, but no one is saying its unlawful to happen to be in a yoga position. What is contested is whether it is lawful to knowingly pose in positions taken straight from yoga.

If someone carves a figure that happens to look like Baal Peor it is not wrong. However, if someone knowingly decorates their home with baals (or Buddhas) it is idolatry.


----------



## Skyler

SRoper said:


> Well, while we may disagree with the reasons for the prohibition, we should agree that the prohibition still stands.



If the reason for the prohibition still stands, then sure. I don't think it does though. We're not dealing with large numbers of converts who are conscientious about observance of the ceremonial Law.



SRoper said:


> The disagreement is what it means to take part in the sacrifice. Paul says to eat is to partake of the altar (v. 18). He says nothing of actually making the sacrifice. I understand Paul to mean that to simply go to a pagan's house to eat is not unlawful because eating is done to the glory of God. However, if the pagan host announces that this meat is offered to an idol, we abstain. In any case, as I said, the fact that we abstain should not be an issue of contention.



So, extending this to yoga, the classes are fine unless the instructor is teaching Eastern mysticism along with the poses.


----------



## Scottish Lass

SRoper said:


> However, if someone knowingly decorates their home with baals (or Buddhas) it is idolatry.



So if I collect figurines of an animal (turtles, in my case) that someone, somewhere has used in pagan worship, is it idolatry? 

Once again, I fail to see how putting my hands and feet on the floor at the same time is pagan, idolatrous, etc. While I may know the title of the pose has pagan origins, I have no idea what the pagan belief about it is, how it fits into the pagan religion, etc. It simply stretches my back and relieves tension.


----------



## KaphLamedh

Better to stay away from yoga. Surely Christians have liberty, but some things are not for Christians. If you want to do gymnastics you can do it without taking part of yoga. That's what I believe.


----------



## TexanRose

I did yoga back in the day. I considered it to be a stretching routine, and it didn't occur to me that people would use yoga as a religious exercise. Having done yoga sessions in the past, I am skeptical that it is possible to stretch at all without inadvertently putting yourself into a position also used by those who practice yoga. Even stretches as basic as bending over and touching your toes are included in most yoga videos I've seen. 

I just discovered the other day that my favorite ab exercise (plank pose) is also derived from yoga. I had no idea. Am I morally obliged to quit doing it now that I know? I don't believe that I am. Now if I were just doing the plank pose for fun, then I might drop it lest I offend or mislead the small percentage of people who associate it with Hinduism. But I'm not doing it for fun. I'm doing it for a practical and worthy reason--because it's a highly effective and time-efficient exercise to improve core strength. 

Some of the more pretzel-like yoga poses, however, no longer serve a practical purpose as far as I can see, so I avoid those.


----------



## SRoper

Skyler said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, while we may disagree with the reasons for the prohibition, we should agree that the prohibition still stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the reason for the prohibition still stands, then sure. I don't think it does though. We're not dealing with large numbers of converts who are conscientious about observance of the ceremonial Law.
> 
> 
> 
> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disagreement is what it means to take part in the sacrifice. Paul says to eat is to partake of the altar (v. 18). He says nothing of actually making the sacrifice. I understand Paul to mean that to simply go to a pagan's house to eat is not unlawful because eating is done to the glory of God. However, if the pagan host announces that this meat is offered to an idol, we abstain. In any case, as I said, the fact that we abstain should not be an issue of contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, extending this to yoga, the classes are fine unless the instructor is teaching Eastern mysticism along with the poses.
Click to expand...


There are still Jewish converts, so I believe the prohibition still stands. There's certainly nothing in Scripture that abrogates the teaching of the Jerusalem Council. The prohibitions are even mentioned in Revelation as indictments against two of the churches. In any case, we're assuming that the only reason is because of Jewish converts. Certainly the prohibition against sexual immorality is not merely for the sake of the Jews. While commentators are divided, I believe that the weight of the evidence points to all the prohibitions being concerned with upholding the moral law. That is, the council was making a judgment about which parts of the law are moral and which are ceremonial. Even those who disagree often put eating food offered to idols in the same category as sexual immorality (with the dietary restrictions being ceremonial).

I'm not sure how it follows that yoga supposedly stripped of it's spiritual significance would make it acceptable. Again, I point back to the principle that idols are to be destroyed--simply stopping to worshipping them is not enough. As Hermonta has been arguing, both the physical and spiritual are important.

I'm willing to concede that being ignorant of yoga's origins would make a believer innocent of breaking the second commandment. 



Scottish Lass said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, if someone knowingly decorates their home with baals (or Buddhas) it is idolatry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I collect figurines of an animal (turtles, in my case) that someone, somewhere has used in pagan worship, is it idolatry?
> 
> Once again, I fail to see how putting my hands and feet on the floor at the same time is pagan, idolatrous, etc. While I may know the title of the pose has pagan origins, I have no idea what the pagan belief about it is, how it fits into the pagan religion, etc. It simply stretches my back and relieves tension.
Click to expand...

 
I used the word "knowingly."

I think I've said all I can say at this point. Feel free to respond. I've enjoyed the discussion.


----------



## Skyler

If the Jerusalem Council was giving the Gentile churches parts of the moral law, then why did they say they laid no greater burden than those four prohibitions? Were they saying that the churches didn't have to worry about the rest of the moral law?

It makes more sense to me to say that the Council was telling the Gentile believers to adhere to those four parts of the ceremonial law in order to make it easier for the Jewish-Gentile merger. They did not try to make the whole ceremonial law binding upon the Gentiles, hence the phrase "no greater burden than these".


----------



## kvanlaan

Pergy, I am floored and humbled. I find that so often on the PB, the greater my knowledge becomes on a topic, or the more cutting my argument, the larger the hammer I have to beat down my brethren. How much more I could accomplish if I took your tack instead.


----------

