|
|
| FamousLadyJane - 2005-04-06 6:39 PM
Jane thinking, really? I better go check the store again. She buys many more books, with different points of views.
Wouldn't it better Jane going directly to the greengrocers and actually buying apple instead of books about apple?
BTW, my apple is transparent grey (calls itself "graphite"), has a monitor, DVD player and works on 230V. 
That's what I would recomment every christian to do who is in doubt if he/she can do the yoga: Go to class, try it out and see if the devil gets your soul or not.
No book, no discussion can be a valid substitute for the personal experience, ever!!!
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
    
| Jane - >>All sides are important to see a thing from all angels.<< I must agree. Seeing things from all angels point of view is important  |
|
| |
|
| afroyogi - 2005-04-05 2:10 PM
Wouldn't it better Jane going directly to the greengrocers and actually buying apple instead of books about apple?
Exactly, you got it. Just when you think it is THAT much closer, you can always get even closer. The point is to always keep discovering and re-discovering.
afroyogi - 2005-04-05 2:10 PM
That's what I would recomment every christian to do who is in doubt if he/she can do the yoga: Go to class, try it out and see if the devil gets your soul or not.
No book, no discussion can be a valid substitute for the personal experience, ever!!!
I think for some, though, (at least what I have noticed) is that it is not possible to 'try' things for fear that it will happen (the devil will get your soul, and you will no longer be immune, etc). This fear can be very big and real. So, for some it stops them from trying new things because of what can happen. |
|
| |
|
| tourist - 2005-04-05 5:31 PM
Jane - >>All sides are important to see a thing from all angels.<< I must agree. Seeing things from all angels point of view is important
That too, haha |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | The Angel Angle. Snark, snark, snark....
"Ye holy angels bright! who sit at god's right hand! or through the realms of light fly
at your lord's co-mmand!" etc. etc.
The poetry in hymns is sooooo pathetic. ....through the realms of light fly... 
Nice uptempo tune, anyway. |
|
| |
|
| Please don’t misunderstand my post.. I do not believe in Lord Jesus or Lord Krishna.. I’m a Theravadi Buddhist who doesn’t believe in any formed or unformed gods (Thripitaka doest accept the concept of a god neither it rejects. ). What we believe is the human being and the power of our own mind and what we do and the intentions of doing things. But living in a multi regional country /world I respect all the religions and the believers.
My point is that some of the catholic groups living here believe that Lord Jesus has been in India., (Specially some of the Tamil Catholics accept this due to their heritage.. I don’t know..). They say that missing years of the bible are the years that Lord Jesus has been in India by exploring several eastern philosophies to a greater depth.
It says, “ With his emphasis on Love and his disregard to social stratification Jesus preached a Droctrin similar to that of the Bhakthi movements of India. Infact content and moods of his messages are close to those of Vaishnava Bhakti. That many conclude there may have been direct contact between Jesus and India”
Some Archeologists believe that an Ancient Pali manuscript which talks about saint “Issa “ is the Jesus. Further they assume that early European and Russian travelers have unearthed similar documents attesting to Jesus journey to east.
Rev. CR. Potter and Edga Cayse (Both writing from Christian prospective) Andreas Faber (Wrinting from Muslim point of view) assert that Jesus went to India in missing years of the bible.
Further Vaishnawa scripture Bhavishya purana foretells Jesus journey to India. It describes how people in India wonder about the unusual site of a white foreign man and report to Maharaj. Saint Issa’s answers to Maharaj’s questions by claiming that he is Issa the Son of the God, expected Messiah of his people and that he was born of a virgin. Further he has mention about Amalekites. (an ancient tribe directly related to the bible tradition) Many vishnawas accept Lord Jesus as son of god and that how he is accepted puranas., there, Krishna is refered as God, Jesus’ father. Lord Krishna declares that he is the father of universe. (Bg.9.17). Steven J. Rosen who is the author of the book Glory of India assumes that when Lord Jesus prays “Our father who art in heaven, it might or might not be to Lord Krishna that he is praying.
But some says that Jesus to India happened after his crucifixion
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1340/jesus_in_india.htm
“his is an English version of an Urdu treatise written by the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908. ) . The theme is the escape of Jesus from death on the cross, and his journey to India in search of the lost tribes of Israel. Christian as well as Muslim scriptures, and old medical and historical books including ancient Buddhist records, provide evidence about this journey. Jesus is shown to have reached Afghanistan, and to have met the Jews who had settled there after deliverance from the bondage of Nebuchadnezzar. From Afghanistan Jesus went on to Kashmir, where other Israelite tribes had settled. There he made his home, and there in time he died; his tomb has been found in Srinagar.”
Any way all these facts I have gathered from texts and this is not to offence anybody., This is for readers knowledge only. No matter which theory we believe.. “What we believe is true “. This is only for knowledge. It doesn’t matter if Lord Jesus has been in India or not. Or Lord Buddha has been in Rome or not, What matters is whether we are true Christians, true Buddhists, true Muslims or true Hindus who can be open minded and who can respect each others beliefs.
Edited by Thushara 2005-04-06 2:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
This is interesting Thusara. There was apparently a significant amount of
contact between the Middle East and India during that time period, according
to various things that I've read. The Gnostic Gospels, which were written within
100 to 200 years of Christ's life are also interpreted as have a substantial
Vedic influence.
When I get some free (if that happy day ever comes), I am going to find
more information on this topic.
|
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy - 2005-04-04 12:09 PM
Dear me....we cannot possibly arrive at any resolution of the question of
whether particular scriptures have got divine origins (e.g., god working
through men). You either believe it or you don't.
True. And I think that it is also reasonable to say that we can examine the source documents (if any) of a religion, to see if a particular statement about that religion is consistent with that religion.
Likewise, if someone says "Jesus did such and such," then it is reasonable to examine the Bible to see if that statement is true. After all, Jesus is uniquely associated with the Christian religion. The sacred writings of other religions (except Islam) do not speak of Jesus, and the NT of the Bible does speak of Him at length. Even speaking from a merely historical point of view, the accounts of Jesus in the bible are one of the best attested narritives in all of ancient writing. There are more eye-witnesses to Jesus, more parallel accounts of His life, and more ancient copies of these original manuscripts, than there are for any other ancient figure.
This claim cannot be made by stories of Jesus that have become popular in any other religious tradition.
... on the question of
contradictions in scripture, it's a topic that scholars, proponents, and opponents
of particular beliefs have debated endlessly. I don't suppose that we
can do much more than annoy each other with that set of issues.
And we seem to be carrying on that tradition :-). But if I said that JimBob's yoga teaching was seriously flawed, & nobody should study with him, then it would be reasonable to expect me to prove that, or at least ofer some examples, or to do something other than just hang it out there on the 'net. No?
So let's either leave it that somebody made a hasty assertion, got called on it, and did not back it up... or let's see the contradiction(s).
Cheers! |
|
| |
|
| Yeah, it makes total sense that there is Eastern mystery influence in the Gnostic writings, if you are familiar with history of the Christian religion. The core of the Gnostic heresy is that there is some secret knowledge or knowing that a person can attain thru sufficient study/practice/meditation/whatever, that will produce salvation.
This would sound very familiar to Buddists.
This is also the reason that gnosticism was found to be heretical. BTW, in Xtniaty, a heresy is a wrong teaching; one that contradicts a fundamental belief of Xtniaty. The core of gnosticism, is that man achieves salvation by some means. In contrast, Xtniaty believes simply that Jesus saves. Not by imparting secret knowledge, not by somehow empowerinng a spiritual practice or by leading someone to enlightenment, but by a mere act of His will.
)>
So, while it is true & perceptive to note that the gnostic writings are very Eastern in flavor, it is also true that these writings are not a part of the Christian religion.
Cheers..... |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Elson, I don't really follow your point your point in the your first message of 4-12.
I'm not the one who said Jesus was in India, and so far as I can see you are agreeing
the with basic statements that I made.
As for heresies (mentioned in your second message), they are declared by one
set of interpreters of a faith against another set of interpreters. Such issues cannot
be resolved unless you start by declaring that one interpretation is correct and the
other is not. Gnosticism is a different interpretation of christianity than the one you
have adopted. Calling it a heresey is simply a fancy way to say that it's not constitent
with what you believe.
|
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy :-)
Actually, there is a standard set of beliefs that defines Christianity. You are not familiar with the history of the Church, so that point is not obvious to you. Which is reasonable, since it isn't your religion. Someone can say that Christianity is not well defined, but that is simply untrue.
Christians do not believe that truth is relative, so we recognise that whatever is True for me is also True for you and everybody else. There is no such thing as relative truth, just a reasonable recognition that everybody is different.
But the Christian God is not relative, He is absolute. Thus His character, His commands, and the history of His work in the world, is also absolute truth. People can, as you say, interpret these things differently, but there is only one set of facts, and all else is error.
So, Orthodox (or standard) Christianity is composed of those denominations which agree with the core tenets of Christianity, and this group is comprises some 90% of the billions of Christians in the world.
Gnosticism is a heresy, was recognised as such somewhere around the second century of the church, and it has been continually recognised as such throughout the generations.
The roots go deep, very deep, and it is not difficult to spot branches that are of other trees. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Heretics are simply people whose beliefs differ from whatever group is
sticking the label on them. Gnostics might very well regard *your* interpretation
of christianity as heresy. It's probably fun to throw the label around,
but all it means is "not my point of view".
I certainly agree with your comment about some christians declaring
that their personal beliefs represent an absolute truth that should
be applied to everyone else. There are muslims who also think that
way. Such attitudes are at times used to justify the persecution of those
who do not share christian or muslim beliefs. I find such thinking
to be very damaging to civil society.
|
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy - 2005-04-15 10:18 AM
I certainly agree with your comment about some christians declaring
that their personal beliefs represent an absolute truth that should
be applied to everyone else. There are muslims who also think that
way. Such attitudes are at times used to justify the persecution of those
who do not share christian or muslim beliefs. I find such thinking
to be very damaging to civil society.
I'd have to agree with you. Not only to civilization, but families can be destroyed because of it, and love (ers) forbidden. Is this what the prophets and messiahs wanted? |
|
| |
|
| Well, you are certainly welcome to think that religious truth is relative, but that is just because you do not think that it matters. Or perhaps you do not take religion seriously. Whatever.
But theology is a science, not an art. 1 + 1 = 2. That is a mathematical/scientific statement, and it remains true whether I "believe in it" or not. Statements about all other matters of reality are equally subject to verification. The laws of motion and gravity are true, regardless of the opinion of anyone.
Likewise, there are false statements. An object in motion cannot be simultaneously moving at two different velocities respect to another object.
In mathematics, we call the statement 1=2 false, because it _is_ false. It is absolutely false. Ditto for the other sciences. in the theology, we call statements heresy if they are contrary to what the bible says about our God.
Now, is it dangerous for a mathematician to state with absolute certainty that 1=2 is false? Maybe I should fear mathematicians?
But if we do not need to fear mathematicians, then why fear religious people who are as certain of their theology as some are of their mathematics?
*
You definition of heresy is not illuminated by an understanding of history of the origins and use of the term. Technically, it means a Christian who dissents with the official theology of the Christian Church in a significant way. It is not possible for a nonChirstian to be a Christian heretic.
Gnosticism is a heresy because it is contrary to the Christian religion. This is not only *my* interpretation, but the interpretation of the church. It would be breathtakingly arrogant of someone to think that they could analyse, correctly interpret & understand, and render a cogent opinion on a doctrine of the Church without having done some rather seriously study.
It is very seductive to think that your or my opinion about religion is as good as anyone else's, and that whatever we believe is fine, but it is not more justified than saying that everyone's opinion of what 1+1 equals is equally valid for them.
Whether two objects can occupy the same space at the same time is not a matter of opinion, and the opinion of the driver on these things will not matter, if he runs his car into a concrete wall. Only the truth will matter. Likewise, whether or not there is a God, what his attributes or characteristics might be, his plans for the world, and his demands of people - all of these questions have answers, real answers. There either is a God, or there is not. He either cares what we do, or he doesn't. If God is part of reality, then there are real facts about him.
Since the facts about God (whatever they are) are matters of reality, then statements about God are either true or false. We might not be able to discover the facts, or understand the facts, but the facts exist.
Is there a more important work than to try to understand God?
*
btw, the Church teaches religious intollerance and civil tolerance. In modern English, religious intollerance means that we do not have to allow the teaching of heresy in our churches. We are to guard the true understanding of God in the Christian church. This is an internal matter, and has nothing to do with people who do not claim to be Christians.
Civil tolerance means that we do not have the right to force our beliefs, opinions, or religion on other people. We are not allowed to use _any_ coersion, outside of the legal process that is available to every citizen, to achieve religious goals. So you don't have to worry about Christians being dangerous because they believe in absolute truth, because part of that truth is that they are not to force anyone else to live by that truth.
But I'm not so sure about those mathematicians :-) |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | It's interesting that you should compare mathematical rigor and
physical law to religious faith. If you had a background in ontology
or mathematical logic, you would know that the existence of god
cannot be "proven" in the same sense that physical or mathematical
results can be. Put simply, it is impossible to design an objective
experiment or a logical proof to demonstrate the existence of god.
Religion is not a science. Religion is a faith.
*
Heresey is what one sect of a religion says about another sect of
a religion with which it disagrees. Unless you start by assuming
that one of the two sects has the correct interpretation, there's
no way to prove that one or the other is right.
You've refered to the bible and the "official" theology of the christian church,
but this ignores the fact that the books of the bible were selected
by men from among many scriptures available (in 200 to 400 AD),
including other gospels: a judgment was made about which books
to include or exclude. It also ignores the subsequent texts, such as those
giving rise to the Mormon [Christian] Church. It further defines some
subset of christianity as "official" --- do you include the Catholic church in
this? Or the Mormons? Or the Quakers? Or the Unitarians?
*
Ontology is actually kind of fun. Here's St. Anselm's "proof" of god's existence:
1. God is a being which none greater can be conceived.
2. Even an atheist claims God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. However, God would be a better being if he existed in reality, not just as an idea.
4. Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just as an idea.
Essentially, it says "god is perfect, and perfection implies existence: therefore
god exists". The defect in this was pointed out by Immanuel Kant: you can't
add existence as a property of things in order to prove that they exist --- you
must actually check whether it is true. Defining my house as a place containing
$1 million, and then carefully refining that definition, would not ensure that my
house actually has $1 million in it.
ref: http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/onto.html
*
We can each hold our religious faith fervently and with a certainty of its correctness,
and we should respect each other's beliefs. The hard part is to accept that these
are our own beliefs and that we cannot "prove" them objectively. I am glad to
read your comments about not coercing others, except where you cite the legal
process. IMHO, religion has no business in law. Law enforces ethics and morality,
but it should never be used to impose or enforce religion. Sadly, we are now seeing
an effort by the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, to use the federal courts to enforce
conservative christian views. This seems to me a clear effort to undercut the democratic
principles of our country.
|
|
| |
|
| I was struggling with ontology, in terms of origins and existence, 30 years ago. Here's our (impossible) objective experiment:
1) We die
2) Either we face the Christian afterlife, or not. Either we are reincarnated, or not.
Just because the God hypothesis can not be proven today, does not mean that it is unprovable. In fact, the hypothesis itself makes it impossible that it is unprovable.
*
Heresy. Yes, there is an easy way to understand which denominations of Christianity have the correct interpretation - you follow the history of the church & understand the currents of theological thought that run thru that history. You will soon see the continuity of thought from earliest Christian times until now.
Are Catholics what we cann orthodox Christians? Yes. Quakers & Puritans? Yes. Mormons? No. The difference is that the Mormons have a different Jesus - someone who is different in nature and character, and so is not the true Jesus. Catholicism celebrates the real Jesus. So even if they have many theological errors according to Protestants, they are still true church.
Do Catholics believe in many heretical doctrines? Yes. But they are still orthodox, because they believe in the same Jesus.
*
The bible was not written by men in the same way as books of theology or novels are written. the various books of the bible were written by God, with men as partners, but God worked with those men in such a way that the final words were exactly what God had planned to write from the foundation of the world. He can do that, because He is God :-).
The particular letters and scrolls that were eventually recognised by the church as Scripture, were those that were written either by an apostle or one who knew & traveled with Jesus. The selected works also were limited to those that were universally recognised by the churches as Scripture, and finally, those works that weree selected were all in agreement with each other.
*
Ok, ontological arguments for the existenceof God:
1) Stuff. Everything comes from something, be it matter or energy. A corollery to the law of the conservation of matter/energy, is that if there was ever nothing, then there would be nothing from which could come. Having become void, the universe would be over. No things come from no thing. So if there ever was a time when nothing existed, then nothing would ever come to be.
2) Cause & effect. There had to be a first Cause. That would be God.
And such as that. Anselm is not very compelling to me, either...
*
>> IMHO, religion has no business in law. Law enforces ethics and morality,
but it should never be used to impose or enforce religion. Sadly, we are now seeing
an effort by the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, to use the federal courts to enforce
conservative christian views. This seems to me a clear effort to undercut the democratic
principles of our country.
Two things: First, yes, I did not phrase that thought correctly. More precisely, my theology says that there are two general limits on my evangelization work. First, I cannot break the law (except for preaching without a license, which is my right from God, and I must ignore any laws against that if necessary) to explain Jesus to people. That is what I mean by persuing legal means (more later). The second limit is that it is impossible to argue someone into salvation by my God. I cannot argue, intimidate, force, bribe, fool, trick, pay, educate, or manipulate anyone into being saved. I can't even pray someone into being saved. Salvation belongs to my God, and He decides who will be saved. Then He opens their eyes to His beauty and excellencies, and they believe. My only work in this process is to teach and explain and generally make the bible scriptures available to people, because that is the tool that He uses to save people.
Now, my religion has a lot to do with law, and rightly so. Ethics and morality come from religious conviction, even if the God of that religion happens to be Man, as is the case with humanism. The question that has to be asked of every tenet of a moral system is "why." Why not kill or rape or steal ? This is a religious question. Whether the answer is "because God said so," or "because you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you" (humanism), or "because the ubermench is above such things," or "it is bad for your karma," questions of morality come down to questions of religion.
So religion is a perfect basic opon which an intellectually honest person can form an opinion on proposed legislation.
Democratic values (actually more of a constitutional representative republic sort of thing) are not threatened by conservative Xtns seeking to pass laws that they believe in, any more that the system is threatened by laws being pushed by any other special interest group or opinion block. Does legislation that favors Hispanics, and is introduced and backed by Hispanics, a threat to democracy? No. It is the essence of democracy in action!
Now, if the legislature or judiciary starts making laws that affect the free exercise of someone's religion (as long as it doesn't harm anyone), _then_ we have a threat to freedom, not to mention democracy. And that is the point of "civil tolerance" that I was talking about - the Church is forbidden to pass laws that discriminate against people because they do not practise my religion my way - or any religion in any way, or none of the above.
Cheers................ |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Thanks, Elson, for the long reply. I understand your POV much better.
There's one passage in what you wrote that I would question.
>>> Now, my religion has a lot to do with law, and rightly so. Ethics and morality come from religious conviction, even if the God of that religion happens to be Man, as is the case with humanism. The question that has to be asked of every tenet of a moral system is "why." Why not kill or rape or steal ? This is a religious question. Whether the answer is "because God said so," or "because you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you" (humanism), or "because the ubermench is above such things," or "it is bad for your karma," questions of morality come down to questions of religion.
<<<
I'm not so sure that morality "comes from religious conviction". One could equally well say
that one of the primary social functions of religion is to support a moral order. Either way,
morality is entwined with religion, but is not the same as religion. Religion deals first with divinity/deity, and then extends itself to moral principles.
The principal function of most moral principles (such as six of the ten commandents) is to
provide a stable and civilized society. Absent any religion at all, we'd almost certainly have
moral principles against murder and theft because they undermine our ability to live
peacefully with one another. Those moral principles become the basis for rules (laws) that
govern our conduct.
This distinction as to whether deity is involved in a belief system is what sometimes
leads people to refer to Buddhism, Humanism, or Vedanta as philosophy rather than religion. |
|
| |
|
| >> I'm not so sure that morality "comes from religious conviction". One could equally well say that one of the primary social functions of religion is to support a moral order. Either way, morality is entwined with religion, but is not the same as religion. Religion deals first with divinity/deity, and then extends itself to moral principles.
Yes. Good point. I agree. I have to argue against my own point. Many of the world's moral & legal codes were developed without a religious basis. The Code of Hanurabi(?) comes to mind. |
|
| |
|
| So many posts on this subject and so many different points-of-view -- it is making my head spin !!!
In my short time of practicing Bikram and Vinyasa -- I have come to really love the physical benefits -- but always end up feeling guilty and asking myself if this conflicts with Christianity. I then go to the internet and do searches on the subject. Sometimes I am reassured that it's OK -- other times it's the opposite. Anyway, here is the result of my last search. Any thoughts . . . ???
"Every Yoga teacher is, in effect, a Hindu or Buddhist missionary, even though he or she may wear a cross, insist that Jesus was a great Yogi, and protest that Yoga is not a religion, but science. This is the most blatant of lies."
"The practice of Yoga is pagan at best, and occultic at worse. Its teachings emanate from the Eastern religions, all of which teach that self is God . . ."
"Another little known fact is that virtually every major guru in India has issued warnings similar to these; i.e., deep-breathing techniques such as the ones taught in Yoga are a time-honored method for entering altered states of consciousness and for developing so-called psychic power. [Note: Yoga is one of the basic means of reaching this altered state of consciousness. And the altered state is the doorway to the occult.]"
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/yoga.htm
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Well, that site kind of speaks for itself, with its rabid hysteria and
toxic presentation of Hinduism.
The site refers to Siva as "The Destroyer", but that's really more of
a reference to Rudra, as least in the way it's presented. Siva
translates as "The friendly one". And yes, he is the Mahayogi,
the great yogi, the author of yoga.
Yoga encompasses many useful physical practices, such as asana
and pranayama, as well as ethical practices, such as yama and niyama.
These in themselves have nothing to do with religion, and I see no
reason that a[n intelligent] Christian should worry that they will
interfere with his or her practice of Christianity. One of the niyamas
is devotion or surrender to god -- it doesn't say which god or how.
Your god, your way.
If you happen to go on to Advaita Vendanta -- non-dualism -- then
you will have problems with Christian theology, which doesn't really
work that way. But I think that a practicing Christian should not have
problems working with Hatha yoga as is it commonly practiced and
taught in the US. And if you hear something that runs against your
beliefs, you can disregard it or just find another teacher.
|
|
| |
|
| can christians practice yoga? yes, if they have a sticky mat. : ) |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
|  |
|
| |
|
| I think that most Hindus and Buddhists would be quite dismayed to learn that I was considered a missionary for their deeply held beliefs which I do not understand at all!
So if I serve my family some pizza, does that make me an Italian missionary?
If I perform in a Shakespearian play, am I furthering the British agenda?
If I teach a Pilates class, am I acting on behalf of German POW's?
 |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| So true, Jean - I sing "Twinkle, Little Star" and "Row, row your Boat" daily but it does not make me either a rower or and astronaut. Not to take the question lightly but sometimes it is the clearer way to see |
|
| |
|
| Hey TGirl :-)
Yep, from the point of view of a Protestant Systematic Theology, the bible has several interesting things to say about Asana practice:
1) Physical training is of some value to the Christian life. Since asana trains the body in strength, flexibility, concentration, relaxation, increased O2 (if you are doing breathing exercises), &etc, then it is of at least equal value to the Christian life as running or aerobics or dance.
2) God looks at the heart, not the hands. That isn't to say that He doesn't care if your hands are holding up a liquor store :-). but His main concern is with your heart/ intentions. That principle is paired with the next one...
3) Worship is not a vague thing, but a specific interaction between God and man. If a person in a Christian church sings hymns to God and raises his hands and takes notes on the sermon and gives money for the work of the church, and outwardly seems to be doing everything to worship God - but if he is doing it for some reason other than just the love of God - then it is not worship.
4) Combining points 2 & 3, the yoga class that I most value is an Anusara class, which is all eat up with Tantra and God as a she, and we have a devotional at the beginning of class, and much of the asana is spoken of as an offering. In short, I am in the middle of a new age/buddhist worship service or sorts.
Since I am not offering worship to their dieties, I do not sin in that. Also, the motions that they offer to their gods are not worship in the Christian sense. Their heart attitude is their worship (in Xtn doctrine). So since I do share their heart attitude, I do not sin.
There are a couple of other important points that bear thought. First, You and I need to be careful that we do not lead our weaker brothers into sin. In other words, if I practice yoga freely because my conscience is clear, but my brother thinks that there is something sinful about it, then I cannot allow my example to lead him to do something that he considers sinful. So if my practice of yoga is a danger to the faith of another Christian, then I need to do something aout that (like teach him a better understanding of theology, so that he then understands correctly that the matter is not inherently sinful.
The other point, that is most important to you, is to look deeply within yourself every class to make sure that your faith is not being changed by the Buddhist teaching.
Dale |
|
| |
Can Christians Practice Yoga?
