s/o Christians practicing Yoga

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, some Hindus DO take offense at the cultural appropriation going on in US yoga -- sanskrit chants and whatnot. My SIL is Indian, and she told me she was quite surprised to walk into a yoga class in the US and hear Hindu prayers.

And to make matters more complicated ... yoga is not really purely Hindu anyway. The emphasis on physical postures (asana) is a new thing. There's been a lot of research on this lately, and there's evidence that the physical postures are actually derived in part from British gymnastic practices taken to India in the 19th century. When yoga came to the US, it got mixed up with all sorts of traditional US things, like the religious revivalism of the late 19th century.

Good one!...not. yet another attempt to warp history to fit the "greatness of the white man".

You do realize that Patanjali's Yoga Sutra was written before the "dawn of christ". Let's not forget that it is also in the written in Vedas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita. But you'll probably find some "reliable (christian) source" that says they were all copied from the bible as well.

As I understand it, the Yoga Sutra does not emphasize physical asana the same way Western yoga does. You won't find Sun Salutations in Pantjali! There have been a couple of works of scholarship on this complicated history lately, including Yoga Body by Mark Singleton. Of course yoga has some elements of ancient Hindu tradition; but it also mixes in modern Indian and British influence, and in the US, has a particularly American spin to it. The upshot is, yoga as it is practiced in the US (and probably in India) is not a direct and pure lineage from ancient Hindu practice. It is a modern, syncretic form which, if anything, we owe most directly to *modern* colonial and post-colonial India. All the better for the world! Here's a lengthy Yoga Journal article on the topic: http://www.yogajournal.com/wisdom/466

[Anonymous]

"Beliefs do not make you a better person, behavior does."

Everyone here needs to apply this more.

[Anonymous]

RantingAtheist wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you really need a new thread just to say this?

Why didn't you post this there in that thread?

Because it involves more than one thread that ties a number of discussions together over several months of posts, not just a day's worth of posts about Lent. If someone tries to broaden a discussion past the OP, they get told to make a S/O thread. Now I guess if they make a S/O thread, they get an eyeroll for that, too.

Frankly though, I am surprised at the number of hostile posts in the beginning of Lent. How important can the season be if posters act this way on Ash Wednesday and the day after? Do you only care enough to tell other people they can't participate, and then ignore it until Easter?

Shh! No judging! Apparently "judging" Christians is the only behavior proscribed by modern mainstream American Christianity.

Aww, but you love her so much for judging the rest of us but never judging you! In fact you've posted at least once that judging us but not you makes her the best Christian here. Does this latest post mean you, like the rest of us, are just a wee bit cynical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Encouragement is all well and good, of course. But we haven't seen a lot of that. Instead we've seen you call individual christian posters (never some of the equally deserving individual atheist posters) bad Christians and hypocrites and the like. You might want to think on your own behavior.

I have called out atheist posters before. But why does that even matter? I am a Christian. I see un-Christian behavior, and I should be able to comment on it for the sake of my faith tradition. I don't see how the behavior of some atheist posters has any bearing on the goodness or badness of what we do because our religion does not grade on a curve.

I spent a lot of time trying to make the case for inclusiveness. If you have something to add on it, great. But if you are going to tell me that we should taunt the atheists because some of them did it first, I am not impressed by that logic.

[Anonymous]

RantingAtheist wrote:
Just to clarify, atheists don't say Christianity is a fairy tale, or that God is a fairy in the sky, but rather that there is exactly as much evidence for belief in gods as for any given fairy in the sky. While you may not like this, this is objectively true. Furthermore, the Bible is some book that some men wrote. It's a perfectly valid opinion to find it silly to believe in that with no evidence.

Sorry to break this to you, Ranting Atheist, but you've just described an agnostic not an atheist. An agnostic is uncertain about the possibility of God, but not an atheist. I know some atheists like to try to define away the distinction between agnostic and atheist, so that whether you have some or total doubt, they call you an atheist. Obviously the people who want to redefine all agnostics as atheists realize that 100% certainty that God doesn't exist is intellectually indefensible. But this has always struck me as silly, because if everybody with a even slight question about God is an atheist, then you've redefined Mother Theresa as an atheist, and you've also redefined all people who call themselves "agnostic" right out of existence by relabeling them all atheists.

Not to mention, the agnostics who would prefer to redefine doubt/agnosticism into atheism are doing a real disservice to Mother Theresa and all the other agnostics, by calling them atheists when they would prefer to be called normal people with doubt, or just agnostics, thank you very much.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply Mother Theresa was agnostic by my phrasing above. Just that she sometimes had doubt.

(Yes, I read Hitchens, thought it was a bit overblown. But bottom line, it underscores the point that doubt is natural for people of faith and doesn't turn you into an atheist just because somebody else has decided to redefine all room for doubt and agnosticism our of existence, leaving us with a stupid, "false choice" between 100% faith and "atheism".)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I recognize OP now. She's the one pretending all atheists are sweetness and light, and then she turns around and bullies other Christians. Not exactly what the good book says.

Oh, I think the bible is very clear. "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:27-28)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:
Just to clarify, atheists don't say Christianity is a fairy tale, or that God is a fairy in the sky, but rather that there is exactly as much evidence for belief in gods as for any given fairy in the sky. While you may not like this, this is objectively true. Furthermore, the Bible is some book that some men wrote. It's a perfectly valid opinion to find it silly to believe in that with no evidence.

Sorry to break this to you, Ranting Atheist, but you've just described an agnostic not an atheist. An agnostic is uncertain about the possibility of God, but not an atheist. I know some atheists like to try to define away the distinction between agnostic and atheist, so that whether you have some or total doubt, they call you an atheist. Obviously the people who want to redefine all agnostics as atheists realize that 100% certainty that God doesn't exist is intellectually indefensible. But this has always struck me as silly, because if everybody with a even slight question about God is an atheist, then you've redefined Mother Theresa as an atheist, and you've also redefined all people who call themselves "agnostic" right out of existence by relabeling them all atheists.

Not to mention, the agnostics*** who would prefer to redefine doubt/agnosticism into atheism are doing a real disservice to Mother Theresa and all the other agnostics, by calling them atheists when they would prefer to be called normal people with doubt, or just agnostics, thank you very much.

atheists, I meant atheists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I recognize OP now. She's the one pretending all atheists are sweetness and light, and then she turns around and bullies other Christians. Not exactly what the good book says.

Oh, I think the bible is very clear. "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:27-28)

Luke 17 verse 3: if your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I recognize OP now. She's the one pretending all atheists are sweetness and light, and then she turns around and bullies other Christians. Not exactly what the good book says.

Oh, I think the bible is very clear. "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:27-28)

I have no problem with the verse about loving your enemies. But where's the part where he says it's OK to beat up your friends and fellow Christians?

And what about the injunction against judging others? Does that only apply to judging non-Christians, but it's OK to go ahead with that verbal blast against other Christians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I recognize OP now. She's the one pretending all atheists are sweetness and light, and then she turns around and bullies other Christians. Not exactly what the good book says.

Oh, I think the bible is very clear. "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:27-28)

I have no problem with the verse about loving your enemies. But where's the part where he says it's OK to beat up your friends and fellow Christians?

And what about the injunction against judging others? Does that only apply to judging non-Christians, but it's OK to go ahead with that verbal blast against other Christians?

Jesus' harshest words, and his only act of violence was to protest hypocrisy among the religious:

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13“It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’”

Matt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

[Anonymous]

So let me get this straight: Jesus can judge and rebuke, so this gives the same license to you. All His words to his disciples - mere mortals like you and me - about loving your neighbor and your enemy alike, not judging others - that applies to the rest of us normal folk, but not to you?

(And don't get me started on His instructions to his disciples not to set themselves above each other.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:
Just to clarify, atheists don't say Christianity is a fairy tale, or that God is a fairy in the sky, but rather that there is exactly as much evidence for belief in gods as for any given fairy in the sky. While you may not like this, this is objectively true. Furthermore, the Bible is some book that some men wrote. It's a perfectly valid opinion to find it silly to believe in that with no evidence.

Sorry to break this to you, Ranting Atheist, but you've just described an agnostic not an atheist. An agnostic is uncertain about the possibility of God, but not an atheist. I know some atheists like to try to define away the distinction between agnostic and atheist, so that whether you have some or total doubt, they call you an atheist. Obviously the people who want to redefine all agnostics as atheists realize that 100% certainty that God doesn't exist is intellectually indefensible. But this has always struck me as silly, because if everybody with a even slight question about God is an atheist, then you've redefined Mother Theresa as an atheist, and you've also redefined all people who call themselves "agnostic" right out of existence by relabeling them all atheists.

Not to mention, the agnostics who would prefer to redefine doubt/agnosticism into atheism are doing a real disservice to Mother Theresa
and all the other agnostics, by calling them atheists when they would prefer to be called normal people with doubt, or just agnostics, thank you very much.

You can't claim With 100 percent certainty that there aren't green fairies dancing around me right now, it doesn't make it any lesS ridiculous. Look up "the scientific principle".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight: Jesus can judge and rebuke, so this gives the same license to you. All His words to his disciples - mere mortals like you and me - about loving your neighbor and your enemy alike, not judging others - that applies to the rest of us normal folk, but not to you?

(And don't get me started on His instructions to his disciples not to set themselves above each other.)

No, my point is to identify what Jesus considered especially anti-Christian behavior.

Christians are not supposed to sit idly by when people do things that are un-Christian. You and I both know it. We are obligated to speak up. And earlier poster already posted Luke 17:3 on that. We aren't talking about looking down at someone because they feed formula to their infant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight: Jesus can judge and rebuke, so this gives the same license to you. All His words to his disciples - mere mortals like you and me - about loving your neighbor and your enemy alike, not judging others - that applies to the rest of us normal folk, but not to you?

(And don't get me started on His instructions to his disciples not to set themselves above each other.)

No, my point is to identify what Jesus considered especially anti-Christian behavior.

Christians are not supposed to sit idly by when people do things that are un-Christian. You and I both know it. We are obligated to speak up. And earlier poster already posted Luke 17:3 on that. We aren't talking about looking down at someone because they feed formula to their infant.

I was the one who posted Luke 17:3. I'm sorry, but now it looks like you're applying Luke 17:3 to Christians but not to non-Christians. And sorry a second time, but you really did imply that if Jesus does it, this gives you license to do it too.

But don't worry, all is not lost, you're providing plenty of amusement to the Ranting Atheist as you trash the rest of us and use the bible to justify yourself.