Jefferiah

The physical exercise aspect of yoga which is what is popular, I think, in America. How can a physical movement be designed to create a door to the spiritual world. Look, if those people believe that, fine. But its ridiculous. You cannot open a door to anything by sitting a certain way, or by breathing slower or faster. I put my arm here, I am not opening a door. I stretch my leg out, I am not opening a door. I am me when I am standing still, and if I am twisted up like a pretzel I am still me. My brain is not anymore succeptible to evil in an other pose. The breath comes in through the nose or the mouth and enters the diaphragm and then it leaves via the mouth and the nose. Whether you breathe while standing on your head, with a finger touching your nose, and taking breaths at five seconds intervals, or whatever----breathing is just breathing. There is no way anyone can design breathing to do anything other than physical things. The fact that there may be people who believe they can, does not bother me a bit.

There may very well be demons, or bad things out there, but breathing and stretching wont make you come into contact with them. There is no way you can breathe or stretch that is evil. If HIndus happen to believe this thats their problem. Its malarky. Demons are spirits, the ability to breathe and stretch comes from God. If a person were to sit in a certain position similar to a Yoga position without foreknowledge of yoga, or to practice deep breathing naturally he would be doing the same thing. If your breathing could make you come into contact with demons, God would not have given us lungs. Breathing is breathing. They may have intended the breathing and stretches as rites of passage, who knows. But the thing that makes it bad is their own belief that breathing or stretching can do this and the intent. Have some judgement! Breathing and stretching are not bad. There is no bodily position that makes you more in contact with the spirit world. I have read somewhere that certain occult people placed emphasis on the natural phenomenon of mist and fog as a gateway to the spirit world. Their own silly belief that this is so is primitive, and we dont consider fog and mist evil. They are not gateways to anything. Fog is fog, mist is mist. Breathing is breathing, stretching is stretching. If your next door neighbour believed that drinking water helped him get closer to his pagan idol OogaBooga, would you then stop drinking water?

you merely have knowledge of the gateway, or the introduction to Yoga. Yoga is a component of a false religion. I would no more practice it than I would practice white witchcraft. I do have more knowledge of yoga than you think. And I understand your concern completely hr. jr. However, I ask you to distinguish between those aspects of Yoga which are merely physical and those that have to do with philosophy and spirituality. To call the physical exercises components of a false religion, does not mean they are bad. Like the use of tea by the buddhists could be said to be a component of Buddhism. Tea really has no meaning on its own. Neither do the physical exercises. But there is a danger in heretical ideas being introduced through modern yoga classes I am sure, and it certainly could be used as a gateway. But simply because of that fact you cannot bar people morally from physical exercises which have no meaning on their own. Even if 99 % of all American Yoga classes taught an heretical component of Hinduism in disguise, the teaching would be philosophical or spiritual and would have little to do with the stretches. You must always make the proper distinction. Bodily positions are not evil, and are not gateways. No bodily position can change your thoughts, or make you a different person. If there is a gateway it has to do with teachings, not exercises.

Another way to illustrate this point is that the health aspect of Yoga teaches eating good food. Now diet and exercies have nothing to do with how good a Christian you are, but to use diet is not bad either. So if someone borrows the idea that eating certaiin foods is healthier it is not evil. The bible tells us not to be concerned about faiths that tell us to eat only vegetables, that it is ok to eat meat. Granted that is true. But if a person feels that his health benefits from eating vegetables he is not sinning by doing so, but he cannot say that it is a sin for others to eat meat, its his own personal choice. Vegetarianism doesnt bring people closer to heaven (Hitler was a vegetarian)....but it also is not evil if thats what you choose to eat. Yogis are vegetarian and so therefore if a western Christians decides to become a vegetarian on the grounds that he believes it is healthier for the body, and this happens to also be a Yoga belief, this does not make it wrong. Though we do not believe in Hinduism it does not mean that a Hindu is always wrong about things. If you were in India and needed directions to a store and asked a Hindu "how do I get to this store?"....he could tell you the proper directions. It is the same with the physical exercise aspect of Yoga. Though we dont agree with the spiritual beliefs of the Indian Yogis, the fact that they were able to develop a series of exercises that is healthy does not make those exercises evil in themselves. If you were sick and went to the doctor and got medicine it is quite possible that the doctor may have prescribed you a substance that was developed by an Islamic researcher.

ONce again though, mere physical positions have nothing to do with the spiritual world. If a hindu uses yoga to help his body and believes in the religion behind it and uses it to contact spirits thats his own malarky. Hindus have no monopoly on the body and the way in which it can be stretched and moved. These things belong to God and subsequently to all of us since he gave us the ability to move our bodies. The mere physical practice of contorting yourself into a certain position is not evil. Evil comes from the heart. If one intends to use physical exercises plus the added Hindu spiritual practices to contact spirits and such then it is bad. But to copy the physical exercises because they are good for the health is not evil. No matter what position you put your body in you are not doing anything wrong. Physical contortions are not bad, its what you have in your mind and in you heart that is defiling. It is quite possible that a western medical expert who is Christian could do research on physical exercises and stretching, having no knowledge of the yoga exercises, and could develop a similar set of stretches on the basis that they are healthy for the body. Sitting a certain way doesnt make you more in touch with spirits. The body is physical and spirits are spiritual. I believe that tea before it became popular in the west was used by buddhist monks to keep them awake and aware for proloonged meditation periods. But now we all drink tea, yet our intent is not to stay awake for meditation is it. So in a sense one could make the claim we are practicing an aspect of buddhism when we drink tea, but really we are not involved in any of the philosophy. Because Buddhists do not have the monopoly on tea leaves. God created the plant. Same with the body and the way it can move and the health benefits that can be derived thereof. So once again I must say that "Yoga" can mean simply a series of physical exercises to some, that happened to be devised by Hindus for their own purposes. I believe from what I have read that the belief in the yogic system is that in order to practice the spiritual life one must have control over ones body and keep it healthy. So the physical aspect was developed as a way to keep the body healthy so they could practice the other aspects of Yoga (the spiritual ones), which we do not agree with. If the stretches happen to achieve the end of making the body more supple there is nothing wrong with that. So close attention must be paid to what we mean by "Yoga". If any heretical philosophy is taught in your yoga class, things contrary to the Gospel, then it is heretical to our faith. But if you are simply using the exercises there is nothing wrong with that.

I think when you hear someone say they are practicing "Yoga" it can mean a lot of things, and not neccessarily heresy. The philosophical teachings and spiritual teachings behind hindu yoga may not be in synch with Christianity, but the raw physical exercises cannot be in themselves evil. If I stretch my body a certain way with no other intent than to make my body more supple, then I am certainly not sinning. I think it depends on whether a person is looking for truth from yoga or just using the physical exercise aspect. To borrow a series of physical exercises developed by another culture is not bad, but perhaps the philosophy behind it is. To a lot of people I think the yoga they are practicing is purely physical, like Pilates or Tae Bo. The purely scientific health benefits of slow stretching and breathing deeply and slowly are not evil, but perhaps it could be said that much of the heretical philosophy can be wheedled into our belief system through Yoga books. Nonetheless you cannot condemn touching the toes, standing on ones head, or sitting in a cross legged position-----these things are not evil in themselves. If there were a cult out there which honoured its idols by drinking a large glass of water, would we then say that drinking water is bad. The cult in question does not have the monopoly on the overall meaning of water drinking. It is the same with the purely physical aspect of yoga, sitting in a physical position to make the body more supple does not mean you are worhsipping idols or believing in heresy. If you sit in a stretched position while believing in heresies then it is wrong.

You make a good point about stars preaching. I think it brings us to an impasse about humanity and its efforts to do good. Its a huge impasse, paradoxical. Because we all have our ideas about what makes a better world and we all are part of the problem. On one hand if we say "lets do all do this (a certain good thing which will help the environment or etc)" we are preaching something and to some degree we are certainly not practicing it and people can cite us on this and say "look he says do this but he worked for Enron." On the other hand are we to not say that thing which is right for us to do? Its confusing, isnt it? I certainly have no answer for this paradox. I think John Lennon may have been aware of this paradox for sure. He probably knew it applied to himself as well. I think in the song revolution you can find evidence of this where it says "you say you got a real solution, well you know, we'd all love to see the plan". Hypocrisy is just another thing we are all guilty of.

In the song Imagine with the line "imagine there is no heaven", I am not sure what John Lennon personally intended. Nevertheless I see something in the line which may have some value. I think I may have posted this before. But Jesus said stuff about doing good to those who are good to you means nothing, because even the pagans do that. Its not unconditional good, and when we do good with heaven in mind, we are placing a condition upon it. Though I think most Christians understand that sentiment anyway since we believe we dont go to heaven because of our goodness. I dont know if I have ever done unconditional good myself. But maybe heaven has more to do with that than with where it is actually located. I mean if it has lots of nice clouds and marble staircases, thats all well and good, but thats the window dressing. Nice clouds and marble staircases are meaningless without being good to your neighbour. I am not very nice to my neighbours. Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is among us I think, in the book of Luke. So maybe it is something that is more subtle than a big forceful miracle. or perhaps we could say the biggest forceful miracles are gentle and subtle.

Well you know as for the real John Lennon. We really cant say ultimately what judgement God has made of him. Thats between God and John Lennon. I dont believe everything John Lennon thought, but I was a big fan. When you read an interview with the man it is quite apparent he had a sharp intellect, and he would have made a good writer. I think he could have been a hypocrite in some ways, but then so are we all. Definitely I dont know what he thought in his dying years, but his later songs seem to have a greater peace about them, for sure. Songs like Watching The Wheels or Living on Borrowed Time. I know during the early seventies he was supposed to have dabbled in communist thought. I am not sure whether he adopted that kind of thinking as a personal way of life or politically. I think there would be a big difference between the two. Sharing possessions and requiring from each person no more than his ability is not a bad view of things, but when you attempt to legislate sharing it doesnt become charitable. The state then decides when and how you are to share, and that can infringe upon individual rights. What am I talking about anyway? I really dont know. Someone else take over now.

I am a Christian, and I dont fully agree with John Lennon (the real Lennon i mean) but I think he did make a good point. When hear the words in that song imagine there is no heaven, i see something other than a blasphemy. I do believe in Heaven, but I think the point to that line is something similar to what Jesus said about the lilies of the field. They are not concerned about the future, and the birds dont store up food. Now I havent stopped storing food for future use. But I think the point is living in the now. Living life in the now doesnt mean you go out be rambunctious and party and be irresponsible. I think it just means living life day by day, with daily bread. Heaven is for when we get there. Right now we are here. We arent smart enough to understand heavenly things, we dont even understand earthly ones. One day at a time. You can only be where you are right now, so why be concerned about the good or bad of the future.

Well I really dont know all the scriptures concerning this and my own opinion may be nothing. But it seems to me that if a marriage relationship were really bad so that a divorce were necessary for the partner who is being wronged, that innocent partner should be able to remarry. If it were a violent relationship or some other bad situation why should the innocent partner have to spend the rest of their lives single when it is not their fault the first marriage had to end?

Well, I think Santa as an occult figure has little meaning because even if he did originate as that people certainly are not seeing him as that person and worshipping him. That's kind of hard to explain. But its like this thing someon told me about yoga exercises. And I dont mean their spiritual beliefs. But the physical positions which are basically stretching exercises. They are quite good for the body, but someone tried to tell me that the positions (often named after animals they resemble) were done in honour and in worship of those animals. As a physical exercise though I think thats really irrelevant right. I mean you could do a stretching exercise in honour of a gorilla if you want, or you can just touch your toes cuz you want to be supple. But on the other hand I think it would be pretty cool if people didnt make up these things to tell their kids. Kids love the truth. They dont always tell it, but they like hearing it as much as you do. And also Santa as a cultural figure does distract from the real meaning of Christmas. And even though businesses use Santa and lots of ads to lure us into making some pretty big transactions, they have a right to do so. We have a right to say no to our kids when it gets to the point where we are stepping over fellow shoppers and beating them to get the last Tickle Me Elmo.

This is an interesting topic. I really think I would need more information to decide my own opinion. I don't know what Zola Levitt says, and I dont agree with watering down a message. But I dont think Americans would take too kindly to a religious program which put down America either. Maybe one of the obvious fears about broadcasting Zola Levitt's show is the fact that mainstream Islamists might feel that it targets them as well. I know sometimes politics is best left out of certain topics. But that does not mean I am in favour of dropping Zola Levitt ministries either. I also think Israel needs as much support as it can get. I was booted from a chat room the other day for having the handle "ISupportZion". Whether or not you support the war campaigns of America in the last few years is one thing. I can understand there being differing opinions on that. But Israel was attacked by rocket fire constantly on their own soil. It's not only their right, but their duty to defend themselves. I was interested to read some quotes not too long ago made by Muslim residents in Haifa who actually supported Israel.

I really dont know what to think of all this. For one thing I dont consider Santa Claus real and I dont think people worship him, but it could be true. Some of this article seems to be drawing at straws though. I mean all these anagrams. You could find those a million places, and when you start looking for that you could end up paranoid. If you take the first and last letter off of the word "Worthy" as in Worthy chat. You get Orth which could be an anagram for Thor. But thats not all people. Orth is also one letter shy of spelling North where Santa lives. So is Worhty chat connected to the whole fiasco?

I used to have similar feelings to yours John. And what you are saying is true. Jesus was not about compelling people to believe in him by force. And in the history of the church as an organization there have been many disgusting acts (i.e. the Inquisition). What you must remember is that there are Christians and also there is the label Christian. Its very easy to use a label to get what you want, because sometimes people cannot see beyond that. I used to have a stereotype of a Christian as a hypocritical, stuffy......but experiences with people I knew who were Christians proved that I was wrong. Sometimes we are so caught up in what we consider the common forms of discimrination that we fail to see there is actually reverse discrimination. I think in many ways Christians get a bad name from people prejudging them, and its not easy to point this out to society because we have it in our heads that stereotyping is done by Christians who are intolerant of others. Of course there are intolerant Christians as well. But then I also think we see alot of things as intolerance that are not necessarily so bad. We are a very touchy society today. So touchy that it could end up quite bad for Christians, though I cannot be sure. I think, for instance, that its perceived as very bigoted when Christians consider homosexuality as a sin. However, this does not mean that Christians look down on homosexuals. The Christian belief is that it is not what God intended, and therefore we call it wrong. But also we recognize that we are all sinners. This does not make sin ok though. But it says to us that we have to extend mercy to the sinner because God extends mercy to us. Now many people see the view that homosexuality is wrong as very bigoted. But it is a valid view. And we have a right to believe that it is. And to say it. You dont see the general body of the church out there flogging gay people, or kicking them out of church. But also because it is considered wrong to us the Church wont allow gay marriage. People say this is a breech of human rights but where is the Church's right to practice what it believes. Jewish people do not eat ham, you know. And its considered wrong to them. And I am part of the pork eating population. And the fact that Jewish people see it is an unkosher sin does not offend me, and I dont find it intolerant of them. And I would not consider it a breech of my rights as a person of the ham-eating orientation if a Rabbi refused to allow me to use his Synagogue to hold a Ham Potluck Dinner. Its their synagogue. They believe ham eating is wrong. Thats their right. But to voice the belief that homosexuality is wrong is much touchier. Voicing it is not ostracizing them from society or beating them. Its saying that we believe it is unethical. Anyways I went off on a bit of a tangent. The point is when it comes to religion which is generally viewed as conservative you have to be willing to look through the looking glass a little, and look at conservativism and liberalism as two labels themselves, which have ways of portraying themselves as good. I think alot of society sees conservatives as people who dont want to allow the world a lot of freedom but on further examination you might find that conservative ideas allow for more freedom. And that when people get very very touchy they may end up trading off freedom of speech and freedom to believe or disbelieve in a religion for the sake of banning everything that could remotely offend someone.