What do the Saints think of Yoga?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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

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 ----------

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

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

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.

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
 
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?
 
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".

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.
 
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. :D
 
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?

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?

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
 
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".

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.

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 ----------

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?

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 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?

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

Good, then we agree on that point. =)
 
[/COLOR]
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?

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 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.)
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
 
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.
 
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.

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
 
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.

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.

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?
 
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.

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.

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?

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
 
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.

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.

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?

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?

Doesn't that mean that Scripture is not sufficient for instruction in righteousness?
 
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.
 
Personally my concience would not allow me to do yoga. Also my fat wouldn't permit it!
 
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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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

And stretching does?

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?
 
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).
 
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."

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top