# Massage Therapy



## QueenEsther (Aug 4, 2007)

Is there any reason to not be a massage therapist? Just curious...


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2007)

I am all for massage therapy, preferably on the receiving end. Some people will say that it is sensual, or something like that. 

Granted, that could be true in some cases, but I don't see it as necessarily true. The times I get massages I am in so much pain--and the masseuse adds to the pain that I am usually gasping and hurting and really incapable of thinking--that I don't even think about how this could be sensual.


----------



## QueenEsther (Aug 4, 2007)

so you don't see it as immoral or unwise to work as one?


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 4, 2007)

QueenEsther said:


> so you don't see it as immoral or unwise to work as one?



I would say it depends on what "philosophy" is behind the training. I know of someone who claims to be a Christian, yet his "massage therapy" is touted as being some new age practice. He claims to manage the "chi" in a person's body, realigning it so as to make it flow better ... or somesuch nonsense. (Chi/ki is the pantheistic "lifeforce" that inhabits ALL things ... rocks, trees, clouds, dung, tires, glass, worms, cells, etc.) 

He says he's a Christian yet, though I'd spoken with him numerous times (I'm no longer pastor of his church), last I heard he continues to hold firmly to this philosophy. So either he's a very dumb Christian, or or merely a pagan who thinks he's one. (Lots of them around.) 

OTOH I've been to physical therapists who use massage to relax muscles, ease pain, etc. No problem there.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2007)

QueenEsther said:


> so you don't see it as immoral or unwise to work as one?



No, not in and of itself. I am assume you are doing it in honorable conditions. And you are a spiritually mature lady. So I don't think you would be using new age healing techniques. 

So I see no problem with it.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 4, 2007)

joshua said:


> I have two personal problems with it:
> 
> 1. Massaging a lady.
> 2. Massaging a man.
> ...



Yeah, that would definitely cut down on your workload, that's for sure! LOL


----------



## bookslover (Aug 4, 2007)

As long as (1) it's not being based on pseudo Eastern religious principles or (2) used as a cover for prostitution (as some of those places are), I see no problem with it, either.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Aug 4, 2007)

Not a big deal so long as you're not practicing eastern mysticism along with the rub down or accupuncture with a Buddhist blessing or Yoga with pagan centered meditation.

But scientifically accupuncture can be stress relieving, massage is good for the body and Yoga improves flexibility, stress and digestion.

So you can practice the physical aspects of these God given remedies without bowing a knee to Baal or being a gnostic.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 4, 2007)

Personally, if I was married I wouldn't want anyone rubbing all over my wifes body and I imagine if I was married that she wouldn't desire the same thing. To much sexual perversion out there to know who is into what. Just my humble opinion


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2007)

But for some people who have joint ailments, etc, there is nothing sexual about it. I have seen some of these people in chiropractic offices. The agony on their faces precludes any sexual element.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 4, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> But for some people who have joint ailments, etc, there is nothing sexual about it. I have seen some of these people in chiropractic offices. The agony on their faces precludes any sexual element.



Been there. I'm not sure you would call it a massage...what I went through a number of times. It was extremely painful, but benefical. I wish I could afford it today.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 4, 2007)

I understand that Jacob. I am one of those. I have visited the Chiropractic office before and it isn't necessarily the same thing as a massage. 
Just like I said... it is just my opinion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2007)

puritancovenanter said:


> I understand that Jacob. I am one of those. I have visited the Chiropractic office before and it isn't necessarily the same thing as a massage.
> Just like I said... it is just my opinion.



Right. I (generally) couldn't give a woman (or a man) a massage. Some people can without sexual connotations. Praise God for them, but I am not one of them.


----------



## ServantOfKing (Aug 4, 2007)

I know of massage therapists who work out of their home or their clients' homes. This could be a point of stumbling for many or could have the appearances of evil. It might be best to work at some sort of clinic so as to avoid any potentially awkward situations. 
Just my


----------



## kbergsing (Aug 5, 2007)

Having had extreme back issues, I see no issue with massage therapy. I walk today because of them. However, you muct always protect yourself. The guy I went to always left the door open while he was in there with me so there was no hint of impropriety. And no one says you have to be totally naked. If it required that, I would get someone of the same sex during an hour when only women had appointments so that the door could still be left open. Those pressure points really work. I was thrown into heavy contractions during pregnancy with a foot massage. So, you always just need to be careful.


----------



## Scot (Aug 5, 2007)

> Not a big deal so long as you're not practicing eastern mysticism along with the rub down or accupuncture with a Buddhist blessing or Yoga with pagan centered meditation.
> 
> But scientifically accupuncture can be stress relieving, massage is good for the body and Yoga improves flexibility, stress and digestion.
> 
> So you can practice the physical aspects of these God given remedies without bowing a knee to Baal or being a gnostic.





Just because some some pagans get ahold of some truths regarding healing and don't give credit where credit is due doesn't mean we as christians can't benefit from their discoveries. 

They offer yoga at the gym that I go to but stress that there is no "pagan centered meditation" attached to it. The instructor is a christian. I see nothing wrong with stretching, flexibility and relaxation techniques.

As far as massage, I prefer therapists that can do it while the patient/client is clothed. I've had trigger point therapy done ( http://www.triggerpointbook.com/ ) and the practitioner worked through the clothing. If I want a rub down with oil, I have my wife do that. We have a massage threrapy book.


----------



## SemperWife (Aug 6, 2007)

My husband has had shoulder/back pain for a number of years now and he has gone several times. A few times, he has gone to the massage therapist at the gym. Other times, I have purchased him a package at a spa. I have also had a few massages.

There are always certain factors to consider in both getting a massage and practicing massage.

1. Is the place one is receiving a massage/working at reputable? There are a number of ways to check this out (ie. better business bureau, word of mouth, visiting location, checking licenses. etc...)
2. As others have mentioned, what is the philosophy of the massage therapist/center? Again, a little research can help determine this.
3. What are you tempted by? (This is just meant as food for thought, not for us all to share this) If you are able to physically touch another in a professional way/be physically touched by another in a professional way, without the temptation to sin, then it should be no problem. Many doctors/patients are able to do this. If this ever becomes an issue, then, it would require further evaluation.

I look at all of this when I consider whether to put myself or my husband in this position. So far, neither of us has encountered any problems with unreputable businesses or temptations. My husband did encounter one "new age" massage therapist, but just did not engage him in dialogue and it was a non-issue. He did not go back to him again.

I would assume the same for you. You are obviously not going to work for a disreputable place. You certainly are not "new age." The only question you would have to deal with is the personal temptation issue. No need to answer that here.


----------



## QueenEsther (Aug 8, 2007)

cool, thanks for the replies. I had been a massage therapist (both the really relaxing put you to sleep kind and the really painful I could be doing kung fu on you kind) but I haven't done it for about two years now. 

Would anyone have anything against giving massages to people in church when they asked for it? Would there be any restrictions there or would it all be the same as above?


----------



## Scott (Aug 8, 2007)

QueenEsther said:


> cool, thanks for the replies. I had been a massage therapist (both the really relaxing put you to sleep kind and the really painful I could be doing kung fu on you kind) but I haven't done it for about two years now.
> 
> Would anyone have anything against giving massages to people in church when they asked for it? Would there be any restrictions there or would it all be the same as above?



Should be the same. It is a useful and lawful service and is not immoral as long as it is on the up and up (not a cover for illicity activity, into false religion, or whatever).


----------



## Kristine with a K (Aug 8, 2007)

Seems like a matter of conscience. I've often mulled over these questions. Every answer kind of has to start with, "It depends on..." (As is the case with most/all matters of conscience)


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2007)

I am not tempted by massages. I usually turn my brain off and go to sleep.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 8, 2007)

I should think that if one took reasonable precautions, bearing in mind the caveats expressed previously on this thread, that is in an honorable profession, in that you can contribute substantially to someone's physical well-being.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 8, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> But scientifically accupuncture can be stress relieving



I'd be interested in seeing the science behind this. Any references? 

I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just that accupuncture (and accupressure) claim to work on the chi channels that "supposedly" run through the body. And since the eastern/new age people claim that chi exists in all things, the fundamental philosophy underlying accupuncture/pressure is pantheism; an attempt to harmonize the chi and get it to flow in the proper direction. 

OTOH, perhaps some studies have shown there to be a psychosomatic element, i.e., a placebo effect.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2007)

QueenEsther said:


> Would anyone have anything against giving massages to people in church when they asked for it? Would there be any restrictions there or would it all be the same as above?



I think that giving or receiving massages to people _in church_ might be a bit distracting during the worship service.


----------



## Richard King (Aug 8, 2007)

re: acupuncture
I don't know how it works but I know that I "walked" in to one of those places barely able to move or even get on the table due to a back problem and after all the needles were in and then the treatment was over I was moving so much better and in so much less pain that I would not have cared if they told me little pain healing pixies were coursing through my body riding on oriental energy monkeys.

re: massage
Here is the solution. Specialize in the elderly nursing home patients. 
You won't be tempted and busybodies won't talk about your profession.


----------



## Scot (Aug 8, 2007)

> re: acupuncture
> I don't know how it works but I know that I "walked" in to one of those places barely able to move or even get on the table due to a back problem and after all the needles were in and then the treatment was over I was moving so much better and in so much less pain that I would not have cared if they told me little pain healing pixies were coursing through my body riding on oriental energy monkeys.





I'm not 100% certain but I've heard that for some surgery (not major ones) in China they use acupunture and the patient remains awake with no pain. It's much cheaper (why they don't use it here) and safer than anesthesia.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 9, 2007)

Richard King said:


> re: acupuncture
> I don't know how it works but I know that I "walked" in to one of those places barely able to move or even get on the table due to a back problem and after all the needles were in and then the treatment was over I was moving so much better and in so much less pain that I would not have cared if they told me little pain healing pixies were coursing through my body riding on oriental energy monkeys.



A philosophy of pragmatism is always a popular one.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 9, 2007)

joshua said:


> I've been told by people many times I should go into massage therapy. However, my conscience wouldn't allow for it. I can't say it's immoral (nor will I) as a blanket statement. I have two personal problems with it:
> 
> 1. Massaging a lady.
> 2. Massaging a man.
> ...



Have you considered pet massage?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 9, 2007)

Kevin said:


> Have you considered pet massage?


----------



## SRoper (Aug 9, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> A philosophy of pragmatism is always a popular one.



Indeed. Actually the reasons I've seen why massage therapy should be considered acceptable also seem to revolve around pragmatism; it works to achieve some goal so it must be OK. However, if massage therapy is really a mild form of sex work (I'm not saying it is), then any benefit that results from the procedure is irrelevant.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 9, 2007)

I think the point is that if something works within God's creation, it must have a created basis for working, whatever inadequate descriptions might be used of it for the practicioners. Thus ancient doctors would have spoken of balancing the humors: we don't like that, so we talk about endorphins and enzymes and the endocrine system. But an inadequate theoretical description of medical technique does not mean that the technique itself is evil.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 9, 2007)

I worked with elementary kids. I can definitely attest to the reality of "negative energy." It was a combination of frustration with stress knots popping on my back.


----------



## Scott (Aug 9, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> A philosophy of pragmatism is always a popular one.


It does not sound like pragamatism to me. He knows that the real reason for the benefit is physical, not spiritual. It is sort of like the liberty to eat food offered to idols. The party who sacrificed the idol may believe the food has religious significance and perhaps even special powers. Yet, a Christian can eat it because it is food. The Christian knows better, which sounds like Richard's view of accupuncture.


----------



## Scott (Aug 9, 2007)

Kevin said:


> Have you considered pet massage?


I know someone who massages her dog every night because the dog has hip dysphasia. I think you can buy these services too. It does sound extreme and my thought would be to just get a new dog.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 9, 2007)

Scott said:


> It does not sound like pragamatism to me. He knows that the real reason for the benefit is physical, not spiritual. It is sort of like the liberty to eat food offered to idols. The party who sacrificed the idol may believe the food has religious significance and perhaps even special powers. Yet, a Christian can eat it because it is food. The Christian knows better, which sounds like Richard's view of accupuncture.



I disagree as I don't think it has anything to do with Christian liberty.

Pragmatism is, first and foremost, an "ism." We may not hold to any particular "ism" officially, but occasionally we can give into a worldview that is less than what God gives us. 

The problem then is this: "It works. And that's all that matters. Chi, energy, whatever. It works." Hence the underlying philosophy, the operative "ism", is: "Truth is what works. And what works is truth." It lacks a desire to examine God's creation and learn why the pain was there to begin with or how it was eliminated. William James may approve, but I think the (Christian-rooted) scientific method suffers. 

About a year ago I had back pain so bad I too had to have it professionally dealt with. But rather than go to an accupuncturist, I went to my internist. He gave me prednisone which worked almost immediately. He then sent me to a physical therapist. No reliance upon mysticism or the new age. Merely an anti-inflammatory and a qualified therapist.

I think, at heart, the church growth method is based upon the philosophy of pragmatism.


----------



## George Bailey (Aug 9, 2007)

*Go for it!*

If your motivation is to bless people by helping to relieve their discomfort, that is honorable. I've received Massage therapy with great appreciation and success.

My advice: Make sure that you don't get into doing it "on the side" for your friends and family....keep the business part of it business (assuming that you're doing it for an income) or you will be giving away half of your time/talents for free. Have them come see you at your place of work, and always charge for it. (or barter!).

Brian


----------



## satz (Aug 9, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> I disagree as I don't think it has anything to do with Christian liberty.
> 
> Pragmatism is, first and foremost, an "ism." We may not hold to any particular "ism" officially, but occasionally we can give into a worldview that is less than what God gives us.
> 
> ...



Pastor Kevin,

I must confess I do not quite understand your logic. For pragmatism to be considered wrong, or the philosophy of 'if it works, use it' to be considered compromise, we must first have some understanding that the thing in question is sinful in the eyes of God. I do not see how that is proven about accupuncture.

I do not see that there is a biblical principle that we must reject something if we do not understand how it works, or that we _must_ attempt to understand how every process works. The fact that we do not understand how something works does not make it wrong. 

Supersition and paganism have grown up around many natural processes that people did not understand. That does not make those things wrong for us. Unless one believes that witchcraft of some nature is being practiced when one goes for accupuncture, I am not sure how or why it is wrong from a christian perspective.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 9, 2007)

> "Truth is what works. And what works is truth."



Hehe. Aspirin works. Aspirin is truth. Even if nobody knows why it works.

I agree that empiricism is wrong as a philosophy, but we by nature are empirical. A child can be told, logically, authoritatively, whatever, that hot water hurts. He'll stick his hand in the hot water anyway to make sure. Then he intuitively extrapolates a general principle from it. It's not a formal "proof" because it is inductive. But we act in accord with it nevertheless.

God made our brains to do just that. 

So, if a massage therapist consults his or her table of "what sort of treatments seem to fix these conditions?" and tries one, it's not an application of philosophy so much as a mere matter of trial and error. If it provides relief, we are happy. Like with the aspirin, we don't walk away thinking that the "philosophy" of trial and error is truth.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 10, 2007)

satz said:


> Staphlobob said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree as I don't think it has anything to do with Christian liberty.
> ...



Several things. 

First of all, there's nothing wrong with massage (as far as I can tell). Sexual issues aside, a therapist should have a good anatomical background and be able to maniulate bone and muscle in a beneficial manner.

Secondly, we have to distinguish between what is merely pragmatic, and the philosophy of pragmatism. The former is not problematic. The Shakers were wonderful pragmatists. OTOH the philosophy of "Pragmatism" is not "if it works, use it." Rather, it's "what works is true," and, "what is true is what works." So there is a big difference between the two. 

Thirdly is the biblical approach. Paul understands that eating meat offered to idols is simply pragmatic; that the mature believer is not harmed by such a thing because the idols really don't exist. It's simply meat. So - in a pragmatic manner - eat it! (Provided no weaker brother is offended.)

However, the use of acupuncture is far different. It's actually a reliance upon pagan (eastern, new age) philosophy. The acupuncturist believes that there is such a thing as "chi" - the life-force - that inhabits all things. In effect, pantheism. It is their belief that the misalignment of chi in a person's body is the cause of so many ailments - from headaches, to diarrhea, to cancer, to back aches, etc. The needles, electricity, smoke, etc., are merely ways of re-aligning the chi in a person's body; a re-harmonization of the life-force.

Biblically speaking we are not to adopt beliefs that are foreign to Christianity. Nor are we to engage in them in such a way as to support and foster them. So the deliberate us of an acupuncturist is far different from an emphasis on Christian liberty. It is to stand opposed to Christ.

Note that I used the word "deliberate." That's purposeful. Given the impact of new age and eastern philosophy upon our culture and society, not everyone is aware of the philosophy that undergirds such practices as acupuncture, acupressure, Shiatzu, Fung Shue, Chichong, etc. Many think such things are harmless and can be engaged in without affecting their Christian faith/belief. So I think we need to be more aware.

I hope this is a bit clearer.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 10, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> > "Truth is what works. And what works is truth."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



According to that philosophy you you consult a horoscope ... if it worked. I can't go there. I'll stick with Scripture instead.


----------



## SemperWife (Aug 10, 2007)

QueenEsther said:


> cool, thanks for the replies. I had been a massage therapist (both the really relaxing put you to sleep kind and the really painful I could be doing kung fu on you kind) but I haven't done it for about two years now.
> 
> Would anyone have anything against giving massages to people in church when they asked for it? Would there be any restrictions there or would it all be the same as above?



That's kind of tricky. I think the phrase that makes me concerned is "when they asked for it." I wouldn't set it up that way. You may find that you have more than what you bargained for.

When you want to offer free services, how do you plan on carrying that out? Would it still be in your office? Or would you go to people's homes? Would you openly offer it to everyone? Or just a few needy people? If you decide to charge, how will you decide who pays and how much? Can you see how some of these things could cause some potential issues?

I too think it is "noble" of you to want to serve you brothers and sisters in this way. And as you have heard here, it is definately a needed service. If you would like to gift members of your church, you may want to talk it over with your pastor as to how to set that up. You don't want to:
-get burned out
-put yourself or others in an awkard situation (ie. offer and have people feel obligated to come to you, potentially cause a weaker brother to stumble, present opportunities for gossip,etc...)

I hope that you are able to work out any issues and gift people the way you desire. I know many people will be blessed by the service you provide, particularly if they are not able to afford such things.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 10, 2007)

> However, the use of acupuncture is far different. It's actually a reliance upon pagan (eastern, new age) philosophy. The acupuncturist believes that there is such a thing as "chi" - the life-force - that inhabits all things. In effect, pantheism. It is their belief that the misalignment of chi in a person's body is the cause of so many ailments - from headaches, to diarrhea, to cancer, to back aches, etc. The needles, electricity, smoke, etc., are merely ways of re-aligning the chi in a person's body; a re-harmonization of the life-force.



I think the point bears repeating that we probably all agree that "chi" as a philosophy is a colossal waste of time: we also have probably all heard of people who have been helped through acupuncture. So chi is a lie; acupuncture sometimes works. It is more probable, it would seem to me, that chi is an inadequate theoretical description of what acupuncture does. Say that in more Western terminology we were to say that a neuron was misfiring and so messages from the nerve endings to the brain and vice versa were not being transmitted properly: but that this sort of interruption in the nervous system could sometimes be improved through needles, electricity or pressure. We've now placed acupuncture on a different theoretical foundation. Is it still pantheist?

Listen, what is in the middle ages they had thought that hemlock killed you because it caused such an increase of the bilious humor that you couldn't possibly stay alive? Most of us will think that this is an inadequate theoretical grounding of the poisonousness of hemlock: but hemlock would kill them as much as you.

The fact is that all medicine is trying to describe and manipulate certain vastly complex and imperfectly understood phenomena: sometimes they can explain something and not help. Sometimes they can help and not explain something. Sometimes they think they can explain something and it doesn't make any sense but the remedy still works. In the absence of an infallible medical theory, we have to cope with the fact that many descriptions of diseases and their cures are going to be inadequate.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 10, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> According to that philosophy you you consult a horoscope ... if it worked. I can't go there. I'll stick with Scripture instead.



I think maybe you misunderstood me. I was not advocating "if it works" as a philosophy at all. I was trying to say that it was not a philosophy. I'd stick with Scripture too.

Here's my point: God placed us in his creation with certain faculties: the ability to observe, the ability to reason, the ability to do. We are created and we are to interact in his creation. All of that is true and we can derive that from scripture. 

But scripture does not tell us how to build a bridge or how to treat a backache. He gave us minds that are predisposed to understand that his creation operates in a certain consistency, he fixes the stars in their place and maintains the universe. It is because we have that innate confidence in consistency that we are able to derive any empirical conclusions.

Engineering is largely empirical. It operates by studying materials and forces, observing what works for an application and what fails, and builds upon that knowledge. An engineer, then follows the method of trial and error, but with a sophisticated background memory of many previous trials and errors. Those are summarized in various empirically derived formulas, from which theory is also generalized.

Same with medical science. Same can be with a massage therapist. If one draws on the experience of many other massage therapists, and they have some sort of empirically derived system of cataloging successful treatments according to symptoms, it is really the same basic process.

The horoscope example doesn't fit at all because it is has no means of determining success or failure. It is entirely subjective and liable to wishful thinking. It's not a summation of observations but a false faith. 

So the empirical method is just that, a method of learning about God's creation based upon a trust in its consistency. It is not a philosophy because it cannot justify or argue for itself. It requires reference to a consistent universe. And we know that universe is consistent because of the Creator who is revealed in scripture.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 10, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Staphlobob said:
> 
> 
> > Same with medical science. Same can be with a massage therapist. If one draws on the experience of many other massage therapists, and they have some sort of empirically derived system of cataloging successful treatments according to symptoms, it is really the same basic process.
> ...


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 10, 2007)

py3ak said:


> > However, the use of acupuncture is far different. It's actually a reliance upon pagan (eastern, new age) philosophy. The acupuncturist believes that there is such a thing as "chi" - the life-force - that inhabits all things. In effect, pantheism. It is their belief that the misalignment of chi in a person's body is the cause of so many ailments - from headaches, to diarrhea, to cancer, to back aches, etc. The needles, electricity, smoke, etc., are merely ways of re-aligning the chi in a person's body; a re-harmonization of the life-force.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Precisely. If science can show that, rather than the paganism of chi, we're tapping into, say, nerve paths, that's fine. It's just that, until then, I'd avoid acupuncture and related new age practices because of they constitute a false religion with false beliefs. All very dangerous for a Christian. 

Even if it "works" avoid it because of the reliance upon Pragmatism. Heroin also works on back pain, and does so much more powerfully and quickly than acupuncture. But I wouldn't advise it because it also kills a lot more than just the pain. So too acupuncture/acupressure, etc. may "work", but the adoption of their undergirding philosophy (even if unconsciously) does much more damage to the person.


----------



## etexas (Aug 10, 2007)

I have been helped by a good massage! I am VERY careful my wife and I get a "couples" massage. We are both in the same room, same time. Just a little caution. Otherwise, my back has really been helped before!


----------



## py3ak (Aug 10, 2007)

Well, perhaps, Kevin. But according to your logic, don't we have to depend on pagan researchers to put acupuncture on a scientific grounding? I mean, by investigating it are we giving in to the pagan philosophy currently undergirding it?

Furthermore, if I explicitly reject the philosophy of chi, I fail to see how I am being taken in by it. What if I rejected the germ theory of disease? Would that somehow prevent me from getting the benefit of a vaccination? Even if I theoretically grounded the vaccination on the idea of humors or whatever, the vaccination should still work for me, shouldn't it?


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 10, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Well, perhaps, Kevin. But according to your logic, don't we have to depend on pagan researchers to put acupuncture on a scientific grounding? I mean, by investigating it are we giving in to the pagan philosophy currently undergirding it?



Not at all. Scientific investigation is profoundly *Christian*. Check the history of science. Doubtless there are pagan scientists but it is they who must accept the undergirding Christian worldview ... that what they're investigating is really real. OTOH if there are some so-called "scientists" who place a pantheistic worldview ahead of scientific discovery, they would be mere hypocrites. Honest research - even by pagans or atheists - is always beneficial to Christianity. 



py3ak said:


> Furthermore, if I explicitly reject the philosophy of chi, I fail to see how I am being taken in by it. What if I rejected the germ theory of disease? Would that somehow prevent me from getting the benefit of a vaccination? Even if I theoretically grounded the vaccination on the idea of humors or whatever, the vaccination should still work for me, shouldn't it?



Germ warfare and vaccination are facts regardless of whether or not a person believes in them. Kind of like gravity, or a triangle having 3 sides. They are absolute objective truths that cannot be denied - except by a flat-earth mentality. 

OTOH chi is the pantheistic religious philosophy that undergirds all new age practices. The questions for a person would then be along the lines of: Do you practice acupuncture? If so, then what is your philosophical basis for engaging in it? Do you really believe in chi, or is this done only for the money? Or - perhaps worst of all - because it "works"? 

Perhaps a person - even a Christian - goes an acupuncturist on a regular basis, but why would they do so? Perhaps it's mere pragmatism (e.g., "The blasted stuff works!"). Or maybe they've never really thought about the pantheism behind it all; how engaging in the practice contributes to pantheism and opposes the truths taught in God's Word. 

I'm a person who argues that one's worldview should necessarily guide one's daily life. So I think it's illegitimate for one to say "I'm a Christian" and be an adulterer or fornicator. Or to say, "I believe the Bible," yet engage in non-Christian religious practices. (For that matter I find most atheists and universalists to be either dense or hypocritical regarding the consequences of their beliefs.) 

Now it's entirely possible for a person to be a true believer and NOT know that practices and beliefs like adultery, or pantheism, or homosexuality are opposed Christianity. But once they discover the truth they must either cease the activity/beliefs (by God's grace and power), or abandon the faith, or simply be a hypocrite.

In the end the "true truth" is what matters; objective reality, regardless of subjective beliefs, is the ground of science. So there are several possibilities: 
(1) Chi is real. (In which case we'd all best burn our Bibles, break out our Alan Watts books and subscribe to Taoism.) 
(2) New age practices are, in reality, manipulating God-created physics and falsely attributing it to some mythical notion of chi. 
(3) New age practices rely upon the power of suggestion.
(4) Some combination of #2 and #3.

In the end I suggest we stick with Scripture and solid medical practices rooted in the Christian worldview and scientific finding.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2007)

Kevin, I guess I don't see the problem with #2. To me that sounds exactly like what I've been saying: they are describing an observed phenomenon from an inadequate theoretical basis. It doesn't mean the phenomenon hasn't been observed. Do Western researchers never discover that something works without completely understanding why? Is it not precisely that occurrence which sparks further research and investigation?

So let's come down to brass tacks. If there were an experiment being run, testing the efficacy of acupuncture according to the strictest scientific standards, would you participate? I am simply having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that the thing is wrong, when described inadequately, but could be all right when described adequately.

I am also less sanguine than you seem to be that we currently have an adequate theoretical basis here in the West.

My last point: Albertus Magnus records _observed_ phenomena that reported startling effects from certain minerals, particularly in combination with herbs. He speaks from firsthand experience, and also from reports he considers reliable, of experiments that had been done only recently (from his point of view). Yet I dare say most today would consider this man's opinions laughable hogwash. I think things may be a little more complex than your account would suggest.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 11, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Kevin, I guess I don't see the problem with #2. To me that sounds exactly like what I've been saying: they are describing an observed phenomenon from an inadequate theoretical basis. It doesn't mean the phenomenon hasn't been observed. Do Western researchers never discover that something works without completely understanding why? Is it not precisely that occurrence which sparks further research and investigation?



Curiosity about the world has always sparked scientific investigation. However I would advise to be careful about creeping pragmatism - "discover something that works without completely understanding why." 



py3ak said:


> So let's come down to brass tacks. If there were an experiment being run, testing the efficacy of acupuncture according to the strictest scientific standards, would you participate?



Me personally? Nope. But not for philosophical or religious reasons. I simply don't have the time (working 7 days a week). However such an experiment would certainly have my blessings. In the end we'll either become Taoists, or end up praising the God of the Bible. However I suspect it will be the latter.



py3ak said:


> I am simply having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that the thing is wrong, when described inadequately, but could be all right when described adequately.



First of all you've got to think Biblically. Acupuncture/chi represent and practice a religion that is radically opposed to Christianity. To support or participate in it is to denigrate God's creation and salvific plan as it is, in fact, a false religion. Should science prove the practice to have a solid - physical, God-created - grounding, then let's go for it in a demythologized manner ... sans the chi/new age nonsense.

Secondly pragmatism (which seems to be a sticking point here) is never an adequate philosophical reason for engaging in a practice. When first developed heroin and cocaine were routinely praised for their practical - and observable - effects. They did great things for people. Depressives had their moods elevated. Pain disappeared. People who used these drugs were obviously happier and more productive than before. Of course, there WAS something of a downside. While some may find practical benefits to acupuncture/chi, I dare say the downside is disastrous. 

Thirdly I think you assume too much. To claim it could be "all right when described adequately" jumps to a conclusion before the facts have been determined. How do you know it's simply been _described inadequately_?

Fourthly, it's safest to wait to see if something is in fact beneficial, but merely described inadequately, or if it "works", but will ultimately destroy. In other words,, is acupuncture/chi merely another (spiritual) heroin? Or is there a solid scientific basis to it that will allow us to use it without having to buy into its satanic philosophy? Patience is a spiritual gift.



py3ak said:


> My last point: Albertus Magnus records _observed_ phenomena that reported startling effects from certain minerals, particularly in combination with herbs. He speaks from firsthand experience, and also from reports he considers reliable, of experiments that had been done only recently (from his point of view). Yet I dare say most today would consider this man's opinions laughable hogwash. I think things may be a little more complex than your account would suggest.



Magnus is claimed to be a patron saint of such people enlightened people as the Rosicrucians. However, that tidbit aside, he was one of the first to see value in the medical examination of human fecal matter. While ridiculed by peers of his own day this, at least, is something for which he can be congratulated. 

So ... is his observation re certain minerals (crystals, actually) herbs laughable hogwash? Yes. Observation - whether firsthand or not - is not science. It's merely observation. I.e., the SciFi channel runs programs on a regular basis that purport to "observe" the presence of ghosts. Heck, they even have video. But TAPS is best watched with a bag of popcorn, not incredulity. The same with Magnus' claim. This is because the scientific method is much more stringent than a simple observation. One would need to determine whether Magnus' observations could be re-created on a regular, repeatable basis, in a controlled environment, thus turning an observation (a mere hypothesis, actually) into a law/fact.

BTW, groups like AMORC [Ancient Mystical Order of the Rosy Cross] sell kits that claim to reproduce Magnus' observations. But I wouldn't recommend spending any hard-earned, God-given monies on the kit (or on acupuncture for that matter).


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2007)

I still seem unable to appreciate the weight of your statements. I wonder if there is a hidden premise I'm missing.

Listen, let's take another example. The Good Samaritan appears to have followed typical first aid practices in pouring oil and wine into the wounds of the mugged man. Now I think today we would explain the alcohol as disinfecting the wound on the basis of our germ theory of disease. Do you think that this was understood in those times?

When you say that acupuncture could be harmful, I am not sure what you mean. That it could have physical side effects like cocaine abuse, or that it will slurp the user into sin? Of course getting addicted to heroin is bad: but you will hardly be so bold as to tell me that conventional medical treatments are entirely safe and nothing but beneficial and always effective.

Perhaps I do see what you're driving it: it seems to me that what you're saying or hinting is that the labs at Johns Hopkins are the sterilizing instrument which could make acupuncture a safely christianised subset of current treatment. But in that case I reject the premise. And if you're saying that we shouldn't try any treatments which the AMA hasn't approved, well, I don't share your confidence in them.

Well, since the Rosicrucians are listed by Eco as one of the prime examples of the power of falsehood, I'm not going to let their claim of Albertus Magnus stand in the way of my enjoyment. On the question of observation and science I recommend, _Worlds Apart: A Dialogue of the 1960s_ by Owen Barfield.


----------



## satz (Aug 11, 2007)

Pastor Kevin,

I still fail to see why you think a belief in ‘chi’ in necessarily opposed to the christian world view. I will note that I am not a believer and hence do not possess complete knowledge of what such a belief would entail. Yet Western science has shown us there exist invisible ‘energies’ like radiation, magnetism, electricity etc. Is it automatically pagan to believe another such energy might exist in our bodies? 

Even if we do not understand it, the paganism that has grown up around this practice seems to me no different from the way pagans would worship the Sun because of its effect on harvest in an agricultural society. We now understand the real reason the sun makes crops grow etc. The fact that we do not yet understand what is behind acupuncture does not automatically make it pagan.

Again, unless you have some reason to believe there is actual witchcraft being practiced in acupuncture, I do not understand you aversion to it simply because it does not have the stamp of approval of modern western medicine.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 11, 2007)

py3ak said:


> I still seem unable to appreciate the weight of your statements. I wonder if there is a hidden premise I'm missing.
> 
> Listen, let's take another example. The Good Samaritan appears to have followed typical first aid practices in pouring oil and wine into the wounds of the mugged man. Now I think today we would explain the alcohol as disinfecting the wound on the basis of our germ theory of disease. Do you think that this was understood in those times?



First of all the astringent properties of olive oil has nothing to do with the story. 

Secondly the astringent properties of olive oil are part of the reality that God created.



py3ak said:


> When you say that acupuncture could be harmful, I am not sure what you mean.



Sticking pins in their elbow and earlobe is certainly not something a person would normally do, except they were mentally sick. OTOH, if it could be shown that sticking pins in odd parts of your body somehow promoted simultaneous healing in corns and hemorrhoids because of electrical stimulation, that's fine. Just don't tell me that such problems exist because my chi is out of whack.

But the fact that acupuncture relies upon a belief in chi is certainly dangerous. As the "Life Force" found in all things (shades of Star Wars!) it is believed that it is to our advantage to manipulate our bodies, our surroundings, and even our governments (e.g., the difference between Confucianism and Taoism) in harmony with it. Consequently it's a religion that contains no sense of grace, or even the need for it. All problems boil down to being merely ignorant of how we are not somehow in harmony with chi. 

So .. are gnostic beliefs harmful? Islamic beliefs? Atheism? Superstition? Necromancy? Of course they are. Not only are they false, but they serve to corrupt not only one's thinking, but also their lives, as well as those around them. Indeed, such beliefs affect culture, and even their histories ... not to mention their eternities.

Then too, apart from the spiritual dangers is the philosophical. To engage in acupuncuture "because it works" is merely pragmatism at work. As I pointed out earlier heroin also works, but there's good reason not to use it. To dispell pragmatism one need merely point out that "can" doesn't automatically translate into "should." 



py3ak said:


> Perhaps I do see what you're driving at
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> ...


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 11, 2007)

satz said:


> Pastor Kevin,
> 
> I still fail to see why you think a belief in ‘chi’ in necessarily opposed to the christian world view. I will note that I am not a believer and hence do not possess complete knowledge of what such a belief would entail.



See my response above: Chi is not grace. Nor is it God. Nor is it real. 

Furthermore, wrong beliefs not only affect a person's individual life, but radiate outward. And ultimately they affect one's eternity.



satz said:


> Yet Western science has shown us there exist invisible ‘energies’ like radiation, magnetism, electricity etc. Is it automatically pagan to believe another such energy might exist in our bodies?



Radiation, magnetism, electricity are part of God's creation. They are reality. If it can be shown that chi is real, then I will resort to Taoism (I never liked Confucius). But the Word of God stands firm. Hence chi is a false religious belief and acupuncture works by the power of suggestion. Or perhaps acupuncture works due to nerve paths in the body. Either way the truth is known and the Christian can glorify God. 



satz said:


> Even if we do not understand it, the paganism that has grown up around this practice seems to me no different from the way pagans would worship the Sun because of its effect on harvest in an agricultural society. We now understand the real reason the sun makes crops grow etc.



Praise God for the Christian stress on careful examination of the world He made.



satz said:


> The fact that we do not yet understand what is behind acupuncture does not automatically make it pagan.



That's also the same argument astrologers make for casting horoscopes. It was also the justification for the use of thalodimide, and later on IUDs.

OTOH, remove (whatever) benefits there may be to the use of acupuncture from belief in chi, and there may be a use for it. 



satz said:


> Again, unless you have some reason to believe there is actual witchcraft being practiced in acupuncture, I do not understand you aversion to it simply because it does not have the stamp of approval of modern western medicine.



If you're not a Christian, then why would witchcraft be a problem for you? However, being a Christian, I oppose acupuncture because of its false religious beliefs.

In the end, separate the practice of sticking needles in a person from false religious beliefs and, if there are certifiable benefits to be derived from such a thing, then fine. Otherwise I would recommend people avoid it like a Ouija board.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2007)

All right, Kevin, I can respect that. I believe that in at least a preliminary way it has been shown that acupuncture has a correlation (and a beneficial effect) on the nerve paths within the body. That being the case, I think I can engage in it if necessary, without imbibing the belief systems that pagans use to explain it, much as I could eat meat from the Corinthian market without turning into an idolater. 

So if you ask me if I believe in _chi_ the answer is no. If you ask me if I believe that the nervous system is a vital part of the body's correct functioning and that there are ways to restore damaged function, then the answer is yes. 

By the way, I understand that the Good Samaritan's medical practices are not the point of the story: but I also take leave to doubt that Jesus put in an unlifelike detail, and so it seems to me that it would still give us information about medical practice of the time. But in the absence of a germ theory of disease, I wonder how you could explain the beneficial effects of cleaning a wound with alcohol.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 11, 2007)

py3ak said:


> That being the case, I think I can engage in it if necessary, without imbibing the belief systems that pagans use to explain it, much as I could eat meat from the Corinthian market without turning into an idolater.



Eating meat from the Corinthian market was simply a way of showing that the idols to whom such meat was sacrificed, didn't really exist. The only reason to refrain from engaging in such practice was to keep from offending a less-mature brother's conscience. 

OTOH, submitting to acupuncture is a way of submitting to pantheism. 

Rationalism.



py3ak said:


> So if you ask me if I believe in _chi_ the answer is no. If you ask me if I believe that the nervous system is a vital part of the body's correct functioning and that there are ways to restore damaged function, then the answer is yes.



Then one must ask: Are there superior ways to restore damaged function than sticking needles in people? If so, why not use them instead? Why would one want to stick with acupuncture ... other than it's hip, counter-cultural, and different? It's much easier, cheaper, and more effective for me to take a baby aspirin and an allopurinal than to regularly visit a quack who'll chant mumbo-jumbo, stick me with needles, light cigars and wave them around claiming the smoke enhances the chi. 

Instead of magic, give me a pill. Or an injection. Or do surgery if necessary.



py3ak said:


> But in the absence of a germ theory of disease, I wonder how you could explain the beneficial effects of cleaning a wound with alcohol.



Do you mean _before_ Pasteur? Who did it?


----------



## etexas (Aug 11, 2007)

I like Chi..............no.......wait I like that spicy tea Chai! Sorry!


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 11, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> I like Chi..............no.......wait I like that spicy tea Chai! Sorry!



But does Chai have chi? Or does simply drinking it promote a belief in chi? Best be careful here.

Seriously ... my wife loves the stuff. Tea. Any tea. Green, orange, yellow, black, whatever. 

But being a caffeine addict I have to have my boost. I once went without it for a few days and was ready to turn into an ax murderer. I was definitely NOT in a harmonious mood.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2007)

Who did it? The Good Samaritan! I think that probably shows it was not uncommon in Jesus' time. 

Not everyone has the same conditions, Kevin, or the same economic possibilities: I regard surgical intervention as a last resort because of its invasive nature. Given the nature of my wife's condition, acupuncture (without cigars, thanks) is relatively inexpensive, and has as good a probability of being effective, with a lower probability of unwanted side effects, than any other treatment we've been able to investigate. And yes, she has been to a wide range of conventional doctors, none of whom have been able to help her.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2007)

Incidentally, just to be quite clear: I reject the premise that seeking acupunctural treatment is submitting to either pantheism or rationalism. I submit to Christ: but I do not see in His word, where using acupuncture as a medical treatment would be treason to His cause.


----------



## etexas (Aug 11, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > I like Chi..............no.......wait I like that spicy tea Chai! Sorry!
> ...


Get your wife some Chai! My wife likes tea too, Chai is Indian and has all these Spices in it. I don't like the taste (I am a coffee dude anyway) but it smells really good...........like pumpkin pie!


----------



## SRoper (Aug 11, 2007)

Chai is just the generic word for tea in Russian and probably some other languages. It does not denote a special kind of tea, despite what the marketing folks tell you.

Remember, chai = tea.



Fingolfin said:


> I have been helped by a good massage! I am VERY careful my wife and I get a "couples" massage. We are both in the same room, same time. Just a little caution. Otherwise, my back has really been helped before!



So now I'm confused. I was operating under the assumption that massage was actually treating a diagnosed condition. What is the point of "couples massage"? I mean people don't do couples colonoscopies, do they?


----------



## etexas (Aug 11, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Chai is just the generic word for tea in Russian and probably some other languages. It does not denote a special kind of tea, despite what the marketing folks tell you.
> 
> 
> Fingolfin said:
> ...


Well there Hippie Calvinist...........I trust you to be the colon expert here.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2007)

I think we may have a marketing hit here: heart surgery for couples; endoscopy for couples. There's practically no limit!


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 12, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Who did it? The Good Samaritan! I think that probably shows it was not uncommon in Jesus' time.



So? 



py3ak said:


> Not everyone has the same conditions, Kevin, or the same economic possibilities



But everyone faces the same spiritual dangers. Your wife may engage in acupuncture while someone else may consult a horoscope. Let us pray the Lord to protect both. 



py3ak said:


> and has as good a probability of being effective, with a lower probability of unwanted side effects, than any other treatment we've been able to investigate. And yes, she has been to a wide range of conventional doctors, none of whom have been able to help her.



Pragmatism.


----------



## Staphlobob (Aug 12, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Incidentally, just to be quite clear: I reject the premise that seeking acupunctural treatment is submitting to either pantheism or rationalism. I submit to Christ: but I do not see in His word, where using acupuncture as a medical treatment would be treason to His cause.



One can never use acupuncture as a mere medical treatment. The religious philosophy must be accepted. (Or one lapses into the philosophy of pragmatism.) It'd be like saying, "I engage in Tarot cards for the benefit, but reject its philosophy." Which is why we have things like 1 Corinthians, or the pastoral epistles, etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 12, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally, just to be quite clear: I reject the premise that seeking acupunctural treatment is submitting to either pantheism or rationalism. I submit to Christ: but I do not see in His word, where using acupuncture as a medical treatment would be treason to His cause.
> ...



But what if one doesn't believe in "chi" and is helped by accupuncture? I, along with others, just can't see the connection. My conscience isn't bothered by it. I am straining to find religious connections, but can't, so why isn't it wrong? 

And if you say "pragmatism," then why doesn't that equally apply to Tylenol? And don't say "because tylenol doesn't have the eastern philosophy behind it;" remember, I don't accept the eastern philosophy of "chi."

And if you say that "tylenol has been scientifically proven to help _________," then I reply why must everything we do physically be simultaneously verified by science? Science is not an unchangeable, neutral standard, nor are scientists always reliable. 

In short, I would engage (I don't in real life because I don't need to) in accupuncture with a clear conscience to the glory of God.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 12, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Chai is just the generic word for tea in Russian and probably some other languages. It does not denote a special kind of tea, despite what the marketing folks tell you.
> 
> Remember, chai = tea.




Indeed, same or similar word in Arabic, Persian, Portugese, Chinese, Malasian, Hindu, etc. It's an old word.


----------



## satz (Aug 12, 2007)

Pastor Kevin,



> Sticking pins in their elbow and earlobe is certainly not something a person would normally do, except they were mentally sick. OTOH, if it could be shown that sticking pins in odd parts of your body somehow promoted simultaneous healing in corns and hemorrhoids because of electrical stimulation, that's fine. Just don't tell me that such problems exist because my chi is out of whack.



For whatever its worth I do not use acupuncture nor do I have any desire to do so. However what I have been saying all along is this: I see no reason not to believe acupuncture works in a manner similar to the ‘electrical stimulation’ you describe. Again, the fact that pagans may ascribe the practice to ‘chi’ or other superstitious beliefs does not of itself make the practice wrong. Surely then it would boil down to the individual practitioner and how he described what he was doing instead of the blanket condemnation you seem to be making?

As an additional comment, the fact that sticking pins into your elbow and earlobe is a symptom of mental illness may well be a reasonable opinion, but it is still merely an opinion. I see nothing in the bible that would paint the act of sticking pins into your body for medicinal reasons as either sinful or foolish. If by trial and error or some other process one were to discern that there was a genuine positive effect on health, how would we condemn it with the bible? The issue simply seems to be proving it can be done without pagan trappings. Proving its validity by modern western science might be nice, but is hardly necessary for a christian to partake in good conscience.



> Radiation, magnetism, electricity are part of God's creation. They are reality. If it can be shown that chi is real, then I will resort to Taoism (I never liked Confucius). But the Word of God stands firm. Hence chi is a false religious belief and acupuncture works by the power of suggestion. Or perhaps acupuncture works due to nerve paths in the body. Either way the truth is known and the Christian can glorify God.



Firstly, I do not see that you have proven that a belief in ‘chi’ is in and itself contrary to the word of God. Is there anything in the bible that says it is pagan to believe that there are energies that operate in the human body? No, there is no need to believe these energies are a ‘life force’, but why would it not be possible that invisible energies that exist similar to radiation, magnetism, electricity etc operate within the body and can affect its health? 



> Eating meat from the Corinthian market was simply a way of showing that the idols to whom such meat was sacrificed, didn't really exist. The only reason to refrain from engaging in such practice was to keep from offending a less-mature brother's conscience.



I guess I do not see the difference you draw between the use of acupuncture and eating idol meat. Both were physical actions (eating meat vs putting needles in your body) that had become overlaid with pagan philosophy. Paul said that unless you were in a situation where you were being identified with the pagan philosophy (ie eating in the temple itself or other situations) you were free to partake.



> Then one must ask: Are there superior ways to restore damaged function than sticking needles in people? If so, why not use them instead? Why would one want to stick with acupuncture ... other than it's hip, counter-cultural, and different? It's much easier, cheaper, and more effective for me to take a baby aspirin and an allopurinal than to regularly visit a quack who'll chant mumbo-jumbo, stick me with needles, light cigars and wave them around claiming the smoke enhances the chi.
> 
> Instead of magic, give me a pill. Or an injection. Or do surgery if necessary.



But with respect, isn’t that just your bias against acupuncture that makes you condemn it as ‘stupid’ in comparison to western medicine? If someone wants to stick needles into his body because of a sober belief that it will help his health, the bible does not condemn that anywhere that I can think of. And I do not feel you have proven that such a practice _must_ always be linked to paganism.


----------



## satz (Aug 12, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> One can never use acupuncture as a mere medical treatment. The religious philosophy must be accepted. (Or one lapses into the philosophy of pragmatism.) It'd be like saying, "I engage in Tarot cards for the benefit, but reject its philosophy." Which is why we have things like 1 Corinthians, or the pastoral epistles, etc.



I guess this is the gist of the disagreement in this thread.

However, your proposition that 'one can never use acupuncture as a mere medical treatment without accepting the religious philosophy', isn't it just your opinion? I don't see how you have proven it from the bible. Tarot cards are for a purpose condemned in the bible as witchcraft (fortune telling or divination). Acupuncture is not. 

I would repeat again my argument that if one were to discover to trial and error that inserting needles into certain parts of the body had health benefits, there is no sin in that. Your response in this thread seems to be that unless we can prove and explain the phenomenon by western science we have lapsed into pragmatism. Again, you have asserted this, but where is it stated in the bible?


----------



## QueenEsther (Aug 22, 2007)

Okay, thank you for all your help. As it stands now as far as helping people at church I got permission from the ladies in charge of the women's ministry about teaching massage to the women at church during the meetings we have once a month. Not all the stuff we learned at massage school, just some moves and helpful information.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 22, 2007)

Kevin, I didn't see your reply until tonight. I echo Jacob and Mark that I still don't see the connection you're drawing; that I can engage in acupuncture with a good conscience; that the relation of philosophy and medicine seems to me to be a great deal more subtle than what seems to be a rather simplistic equation that Western=scientific=Christian; that if something _works_ in God's world for its intended purpose without idolatry that it must function on a principle created by God; that in any case I believe it has been shown at least enough to warrant giving it a try that acupuncture has a measurable and explicable effect upon the nervous system; that it is legitimate to seek treatment for medical conditions, and extraordinary conditions sometimes call for extraordinary treatments; and that people stick needles in their body all the time when they have an illness -and they even put a fluid in with them!


----------



## mbj0680 (Aug 22, 2007)

I think messages and acupunctures are fine. Love to get a massage. Only have done acupuncture a few times and to be honest I didn't feel any different. Now does that mean it doesn't work, no, it just didn't do anything for me. Work medical coverage paid for it so what the heck why not try it. 
As far as feeling uncomfortable about going to either of these, a way to get over that is share the gospel when you are there. Ask them about what they believe, or if they go to church. If you are getting a message it's usually an hour. That's a long time to be able to share the good news of Jesus Christ with someone. Strike up a simple conversation and ask them a hypothetical question that if they died today and found themselves standing before God and He were to ask them why should He let them into Heaven, what would they say? You might be surprised at some answers. You can then begin to share the gospel.



Just a thought.


----------



## SemperWife (Aug 22, 2007)

QueenEsther said:


> Okay, thank you for all your help. As it stands now as far as helping people at church I got permission from the ladies in charge of the women's ministry about teaching massage to the women at church during the meetings we have once a month. Not all the stuff we learned at massage school, just some moves and helpful information.



Sounds like a great idea. Just out of curiosity, how did you come to that decision?


----------



## QueenEsther (Aug 22, 2007)

SemperWife said:


> QueenEsther said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, thank you for all your help. As it stands now as far as helping people at church I got permission from the ladies in charge of the women's ministry about teaching massage to the women at church during the meetings we have once a month. Not all the stuff we learned at massage school, just some moves and helpful information.
> ...





Initially, it was when I thought about teaching a friend of mine and her sisters how to do massage so they could better help their families. After thinking about that for a while I remembered that we have women's get togethers once a month during the year where the first half is spent learning something like making pie crust, growing herbs, cooking with herbs, pretty much anything that would be of interest to women. And the second half is spent in Bible study. Learning some massage ought to fit right in. I hope that answers your question, if not let me know


----------



## SemperWife (Aug 22, 2007)

QueenEsther said:


> SemperWife said:
> 
> 
> > QueenEsther said:
> ...



Yes, that answers my question. I was just curious. I think you are right. It seems like it would fit in very nicely with what you already do. If I were part of your group, I would love to learn a bit of massage.

On a side note, I like the idea of spending part of the women's fellowship time learning to make/do something in addition to a bible study. It would be especially nice here in Okinawa as we attend a very international church. We could learn so much from many of the Filipino and Okinawan women and vice versa. Do you mind if we borrow your idea?


----------



## QueenEsther (Aug 23, 2007)

That would be great  I don't think they would mind ;-) I wish I could be there to teach yall massage


----------

