What do the Saints think of Yoga?

[ChristianTrader]

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.

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

CT

 

[Scottish Lass]

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

yep

 

[SRoper]

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

 

[Skyler]

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

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

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

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

 

[Scottish Lass]

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

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

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

 

[KaphLamedh]

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

 

[TexanRose]

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

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

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

 

[SRoper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I used the word "knowingly."

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

 

[Skyler]

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

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

 

[kvanlaan]

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