Poll: Is it ok to be Catholic and be a Yogi Bear?

Onesimus

So after reading a Jesuit novices blog post about him practicing Bikram Yoga, it got me thinking as some Catholics say it is against Church rules. I've never seen this officially mentioned by the Church ( I think I'm just too lazy to google it to be honest it probably does exist ) and to me Yoga is just an exercise. I think that there are some Yoga classes that are probably more than just ''exercise'' and also focus on Buddism or Hinduism.

So, is it ok to be Catholic and be a Yogi Bear?

gimmebroadband

No, aspects such as the following are contrary to our faith:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=39690

Yoga, zen, transcendental meditation and tantric exercises lead to an experience of self-fulfilment or enlightenment. Peak-experiences (reliving one's birth, travelling to the gates of death, biofeedback, dance and even drugs – anything which can provoke an altered state of consciousness) are believed to lead to unity and enlightenment. Since there is only one Mind, some people can be channels for higher beings. Every part of this single universal being has contact with every other part. The classic approach in New Age is transpersonal psychology, whose main concepts are the Universal Mind, the Higher Self, the collective and personal unconscious and the individual ego. The Higher Self is our real identity, a bridge between God as divine Mind and humanity. Spiritual development is contact with the Higher Self, which overcomes all forms of dualism between subject and object, life and death, psyche and soma, the self and the fragmentary aspects of the self. Our limited personality is like a shadow or a dream created by the real self. The Higher Self contains the memories of earlier (re-)incarnations.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

The Quadratic Equation

Too broad a question to give a response to.
At one extreme there is using Yoga techniques for just exercise only, and at the other extreme there is for example using Yoga for hindu worship and spirituality, and there are all sorts of levels of intent and spirituality in between.

Onesimus

No

gimmebroadband wrote: »

No, aspects such as the following are contrary to our faith:



http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

Wow! Thanks Gimme broadband. I always thought of it as just exercise ( I've never practiced it ) for losing weight. But I can see the fact that it is not the case can not be argued. direct from the Churches beautiful mouth herself I cant say I'd even be stupid enough to argue with that.

Thanks again
Onesimus

p.s alarming that a Jesuit practices it. :eek:

Benny_Cake

So long as you don't swipe anyone's picnic basket you should be fine.

As TQE says, yoga covers a variety of practices. A huge number of churches up and down the country allow classes in parish centres and so on so I'd imagine there is no problem with most forms of yoga.

Doc Farrell

No

I don't think doing a few yoga poses is anti catholic. I think murdering children in Nigeria at Christmas is anti catholic. The provisional report is too vague, lumping too much in as new age and therefore anti catholic.

I'm pretty sure the princes of the church know the differences between fend shui and satanism. If anybody here thinks that one leads to the other then God bless them.
Here's another Jesuit who was accused of being not quite right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Ricci

More than 400 years ago.

Here is my view.
http://www.messengersaintanthony.com/messaggero/pagina_articolo.asp?IDX=262IDRX=78

If you read it you will see that one of the main critics is a Jesuit, John Hardon, so please, no more anti Jesuit comments thank you.

I was at a Catholic talk last night given by a well known priest and I was the second youngest there and I'm 40! Accusing men and women of being sinful because they stretch out in lycra is the reason so many want no part of it.

Here's a story Christians on boards should be looking at. But yoga?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8120142/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-Pakistan-for-blasphemy.html

Peregrinus

Onesimus wrote: »

Wow! Thanks Gimme broadband. I always thought of it as just exercise ( I've never practiced it ) for losing weight. But I can see the fact that it is not the case can not be argued. direct from the Churches beautiful mouth herself I cant say I'd even be stupid enough to argue with that.

Well, it’s worth pointing out that gimmebroadband’s quotation from the Vatican document on new age practices and philosophy is a little . . . selective. As the document says at paragraph 6.2:

“. . . it is worth saying once again that not everyone or everything in the broad sweep of New Age is linked to the theories of the movement in the same ways. Likewise, the label itself is often misapplied or extended to phenomena which can be categorised in other ways . . . It is essential to see whether phenomena linked to this movement, however loosely, reflect or conflict with a Christian vision of God, the human person and the world. The mere use of the term New Age in itself means little, if anything. The relationship of the person, group, practice or commodity to the central tenets of Christianity is what counts.”

In other words, the document doesn’t address yoga as a physical practice at all - and this is the way that probably 99% of Irish practitioners encounter it. If your goal in practicing yoga is flexibility, or lower blood pressure, or reduced stress, or similar health or emotional benefits, go for it. There’s no problem. What the document calls for is scrutiny - not automatic rejection, but scrutiny - of any philosophical or theological component offered along with the physical practices.

And, perhaps ironically, the document explicitly warns that:

“The term New Age has even been abused to demonise people and practices.”

Not that I would wish to suggest that gimmebroadband seeks to demonise yoga with his selective quotation. But it would be grossly inaccurate to say that the Vatican document indicates that, no, a Catholic ought not to practice yoga. It does no such thing.

gimmebroadband

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it’s worth pointing out that gimmebroadband’s quotation from the Vatican document on new age practices and philosophy is a little . . . selective. As the document says at paragraph 6.2:

Not that I would wish to suggest that gimmebroadband seeks to demonise yoga with his selective quotation. But it would be grossly inaccurate to say that the Vatican document indicates that, no, a Catholic ought not to practice yoga. It does no such thing.

That rreply was given by a Catholic Answer Apologist to another poster who aksed the same question as the OP, so I posted a direct link to the Vatican site. So no, I wasn't being selective, just helpful!

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=39690


Also, just two months ago, Fr. Gabriel Amorth the Chief Vatican Exorcist said:

Yoga is the work of the devil.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066289/Yoga-work-devil-says-Vaticans-chief-exorcist-doesnt-like-Harry-Potter-either.html

Peregrinus

Well, perhaps it was the Catholic Answers apologist who was being selective, and you were merely the unwitting agent who relayed his selectivity.

But, I have to say, you didn’t just relay it; you intensified it. He started his reply by saying that the physical aspects of yoga may be beneficial, and making the physical/spiritual distinction. You dropped that bit, which I think is pretty key to understanding the Catholic position.

As for the views of Fr. Amorth, I wouldn’t trust the Daily Mail to relay a weather forecast accurately, never mind the nuances of anybody’s theological opinions.

gimmebroadband

I used the quote bit tht the apologist used from the vatican site. I take offence that you assume that I have an agenda, that is not so.

The apologist also quotes:

Aspects such as these are certainly contrary to our faith!

I was always led to believe that Yoga and New Age trends are spiritually dangerous!

The daily mail isn't the only paper to report what Fr. Amroth said on Yoga.


Vatican insider;

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/diavolo-devil-diablo-amorth-yoga-10271/

Peregrinus

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I used the quote bit tht the apologist used from the vatican site. I take offence that you assume that I have an agenda, that is not so.

I'm not saying that you have an agenda, gimmebroadband, and I don't assume that you do. All I'm saying is that the way you edited the apologists reply when relaying it to us did in fact intensify the failrue to bring out the physical/spiritual distinction. Whether that was your intention or not is something you know and I don't, so I am happy to accept your assurances on the point.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I was always led to believe that Yoga and New Age trends are spiritually dangerous!

I wasn't! And I've no reason to think that your experience was normative and mine was not.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The daily mail isn't the only paper to report what Fr. Amroth said on Yoga.

Fr. Amorth's views on this are not particularly authoritive. He is some way from the mainstream in this regard, as can be seen by the bracketing of his views on Yoga with his definitely marginal views on Harry Potter. The Pontifical Council document gives a much more nuanced, and much more fully developed, view, and I would pay more attention to them than I would to the views of Fr. Amorth if I was looking for a position which represents the mainstream Catholic perspective. Amorth is always good for a sensationalist quote, and I think the religious correspondents in Rome all know this.

homer911

Why limit it to being Catholic? - why not Christian?

I tried my hand at Pilates once, but when the instructor started going on about "centering your energies" I knew enough was enough for me

I'd say there is no straightforward answer as witnessed by the number of Yoga/Pilates sessions run in church halls up and down the country. If its limited to exercises and stretching, I would have no issue with it, but step across that "new age" boundary and I'm out of there..

Could you not have an "It depends.." answer?

Onesimus

No

homer911 wrote: »

Why limit it to being Catholic? - why not Christian?

I tried my hand at Pilates once, but when the instructor started going on about "centering your energies" I knew enough was enough for me

I'd say there is no straightforward answer as witnessed by the number of Yoga/Pilates sessions run in church halls up and down the country. If its limited to exercises and stretching, I would have no issue with it, but step across that "new age" boundary and I'm out of there..

Could you not have an "It depends.." answer?

The reason I didnt include all Christians is because the question is...is it ok to be a Catholic and be a yogi bear? Which means I'm looking for the Catholic do's and dont's.

Doc, How many yoga classes are there though that we know of that ONLY focus on the exercise part? I dont think I've ever heard of any. The Jesuit in question was attending a Bikram Yoga class which is definitely the spiritualistic aspect of the Yoga exercise coupled with channeling your energies.

It's New age rubbish and not Catholic. It would be a DIFFERENT story had I ever encountered someone doing this without all the new age nonsense that goes with it. But I'm afraid I've never seen it.

yoga is mostly done as exercise when i've encountered it, and making sure you're calm, that's about it
the origins of it are quite spiritual, but now it's on weight-loss programs and "tone your body" programs

Doc Farrell

No

Although I have not the slightest problem with people doing yoga I do want to mention something about new age books, I think this is the best thread for it.

I've been buying a couple of books recently and have been gobsmacked by the atrocious selection available in the main bookshops. The worst by a mile has got to be Easons in Swords. They have two or three bays titled 'Religion' , each bay five or six shelves deep and I saw maybe half a dozen Catholic titles. Even the small best sellers that devout Catholics would buy were missing. Instead there was row after row on western chancers writing on Iching and Chinese Astrology, angel therapy, dream interpretation and American views on Hindu and Buddhist mysticism.
Now I don't have a single problem with any of these books, even if most of them are written by Westerners with little knowledge of the subjects, but rather they are written to simply cash in on the gullibility of searching souls.
However with two thousand years of books to choose from I think it's disgraceful that Easons, who market themselves as Irish, have so little on the main religion of this island, Christianity. At the very least they should change the bay title from Religion to New Age or Personal Spiritual Searching or whatever you could call the nonsense that they are selling.

I want to write about the following point at a later date but the key to understanding real Christianity, for me at the moment, is St Peter. Here is a rough fisherman, temperamental, prone to violence (hold onto your ear!) argumentative, basically your average Irishman! Why would a man like this follow Jesus, why would he deny him, hide away from the soldiers and then turn around and build a new religion with Paul and all the other apostles and finally give his life along with again Paul and the many others.

And of the hundreds of books that discuss this, can I find a single one in Easons? Not a chance. And Hughes & Hughes is just as awful, although they have an excuse as they just reopened following bankruptcy.

The only decent mainstream, ie non religious shop is Hodges Figgis. They have a decent selection on all the major religions and are happy to order any title they don't currently stock.

And the specific title that I was looking for, 'The Resurrection of Jesus' published by a great Protestant publisher, SPCK, was found where? In Veritas, a Catholic bookshop.

I worked in Hodges Figgis and I can tell you that religious books sell, and the classics in Christian teaching, of which there are a couple of hundred, will consistently make you a profit. Why Easons don't want to sell a bible, never mind a classic by one of the saints, is simply because they can't be bothered, which makes poor business sense. They are no longer a bookshop but simply an overpriced stationary and schoolbook distributor.

homer911

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Although I have not the slightest problem with people doing yoga I do want to mention something about new age books, I think this is the best thread for it.

I've been buying a couple of books recently and have been gobsmacked by the atrocious selection available in the main bookshops. The worst by a mile has got to be Easons in Swords. They have two or three bays titled 'Religion' , each bay five or six shelves deep and I saw maybe half a dozen Catholic titles. Even the small best sellers that devout Catholics would buy were missing. Instead there was row after row on western chancers writing on Iching and Chinese Astrology, angel therapy, dream interpretation and American views on Hindu and Buddhist mysticism.
Now I don't have a single problem with any of these books, even if most of them are written by Westerners with little knowledge of the subjects, but rather they are written to simply cash in on the gullibility of searching souls.
However with two thousand years of books to choose from I think it's disgraceful that Easons, who market themselves as Irish, have so little on the main religion of this island, Christianity. At the very least they should change the bay title from Religion to New Age or Personal Spiritual Searching or whatever you could call the nonsense that they are selling.

I want to write about the following point at a later date but the key to understanding real Christianity, for me at the moment, is St Peter. Here is a rough fisherman, temperamental, prone to violence (hold onto your ear!) argumentative, basically your average Irishman! Why would a man like this follow Jesus, why would he deny him, hide away from the soldiers and then turn around and build a new religion with Paul and all the other apostles and finally give his life along with again Paul and the many others.

And of the hundreds of books that discuss this, can I find a single one in Easons? Not a chance. And Hughes & Hughes is just as awful, although they have an excuse as they just reopened following bankruptcy.

The only decent mainstream, ie non religious shop is Hodges Figgis. They have a decent selection on all the major religions and are happy to order any title they don't currently stock.

And the specific title that I was looking for, 'The Resurrection of Jesus' published by a great Protestant publisher, SPCK, was found where? In Veritas, a Catholic bookshop.

I worked in Hodges Figgis and I can tell you that religious books sell, and the classics in Christian teaching, of which there are a couple of hundred, will consistently make you a profit. Why Easons don't want to sell a bible, never mind a classic by one of the saints, is simply because they can't be bothered, which makes poor business sense. They are no longer a bookshop but simply an overpriced stationary and schoolbook distributor.

Write and complain: http://www.easons.com/contact.asp

Yes, Easons sells book, but they have never branded themselves as booksellers in the same vane as Hodges Figgis, and Hughes & Hughes seem to heading down the same road as Easons stocking cards and gifts..

Don't forget there is always Footprints or CPC as well as Veritas..

Doc Farrell

No

Are they online, because the Veritas I meant is the shop in Abbey st. Online I tend to use kennys.ie, thebook depository, better world books and now I've started to use kindle which for classics at 99c is pretty cool.

I also worked for Easons as a student and since then their selection has bombed. I guess the internet has destroyed their old distribution monopoly.

But there is just no meat and potatoes in the new age titles. Touchyfeely positive vibe writing is helpful when you are trying to dealing with mild depression but when you are dealing with grief, extreme physical suffering, loss of faith and all the big problems that each adult has to face, getting in touch with your inner energies won't cut it.

By the way as a former student of Buddhism I have a great deal of respect for other religions but most of the Buddhist titles sold to Westerners are just a mishmash of western interpretations. For example Eckhart Tolle is just Buddha Lite and Deepak Chopra is Hindu for the wealthy. No harm in reading them, but you will be left with the feeling 'is that all there is?'

And it amazes me that Easons will sell the books of the Dalai Lama, a man I deeply respect and who calls himself just a humble monk but they have no titles written by any Christian monks like Thomas Merton or St Benedict.

Benny_Cake

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Are they online, because the Veritas I meant is the shop in Abbey st. Online I tend to use kennys.ie, thebook depository, better world books and now I've started to use kindle which for classics at 99c is pretty cool.

I also worked for Easons as a student and since then their selection has bombed. I guess the internet has destroyed their old distribution monopoly.

But there is just no meat and potatoes in the new age titles. Touchyfeely positive vibe writing is helpful when you are trying to dealing with mild depression but when you are dealing with grief, extreme physical suffering, loss of faith and all the big problems that each adult has to face, getting in touch with your inner energies won't cut it.

By the way as a former student of Buddhism I have a great deal of respect for other religions but most of the Buddhist titles sold to Westerners are just a mishmash of western interpretations. For example Eckhart Tolle is just Buddha Lite and Deepak Chopra is Hindu for the wealthy. No harm in reading them, but you will be left with the feeling 'is that all there is?'

And it amazes me that Easons will sell the books of the Dalai Lama, a man I deeply respect and who calls himself just a humble monk but they have no titles written by any Christian monks like Thomas Merton or St Benedict.

With the exception of Easons on O'Connell St in Dublin, most Easons tend to carry whatever is most popular at that moment in time - if you got to the history section you'll find the selection to be quite limited too. I'll agree that most new age stuff is just superficial stuff, a bit of all the major spiritual traditions without getting too deep. The fact is that it sells, largely because a lot of people have switched off from traditional religion. I'd imagine that most Christians would buy from Christian bookshops such as Veritas or Scripture Union. The likes of the Kindle, which I have to admit to loving myself, is another big blow to the sort of bookshop that carries a large variety of titles.

newmug

No

I voted "yes" to the OP's question, because to me yoga is just a set of choreographed physical stretches, just like a dance or a set of GAA training drills. I give it zero spiritual significance, and I've never came across any class or practitioner who does.

Once however, I did a type of karate where you had to bow to a picture of the founder of this particular style. I asked the instructor why this was, and he explained that it was nothing spiritual or religious, it was just a mark of respect in the Japanese culture, kinda like a handshake in ours. I said that seeing as this was only a picture and not the real man, I felt like this was idol worship, and that that was against my religion (Catholicism). He accepted this and I wasnt expected to do it anymore. No probs.

But anything that does have a spiritual or supernatural element that is at odds with Christianity / Catholicism, I steer well away from it. I can understand why some people (athiests) dont believe in the supernatural - you cant see it, detect it, interact with it. I always compare it to money in your bank account. Its electronic, untouchable, hard to fathom its actual value. But just like electronic money, what you do to it is real and it has effects that you will one day feel. Every sin is like another euro onto your overdraft, and if you mess with your spirituality or soul, its like messing with your credit card on dodgy websites.

Stay true to Jesus, you cant go wrong then.

Doc Farrell

No

Was it Aikido that you studied because I practiced that for a few months and I had no problem bowing to the picture of Ueshiba. It was great discipline and exercise for the inner city kids who trained there. It turns out that Ueshiba got very spiritual and into Shintoism as he got older. The ki or chi that some martial artists talk about is a very interesting phenomenon, although I've never seen it mentioned in martial arts in Ireland.

My sensei was brilliant, if I had kids I would have no problem with the spiritual aspects of martial arts that are supposed to exist though rarely do but I would have a serious problem with the bullying and egotism of adults that used to be rampant in martial arts circles about 20 years ago.

Sonics2k

newmug wrote: »

I voted "yes" to the OP's question, because to me yoga is just a set of choreographed physical stretches, just like a dance or a set of GAA training drills. I give it zero spiritual significance, and I've never came across any class or practitioner who does.

Once however, I did a type of karate where you had to bow to a picture of the founder of this particular style. I asked the instructor why this was, and he explained that it was nothing spiritual or religious, it was just a mark of respect in the Japanese culture, kinda like a handshake in ours. I said that seeing as this was only a picture and not the real man, I felt like this was idol worship, and that that was against my religion (Catholicism). He accepted this and I wasnt expected to do it anymore. No probs.

To be fair, that's not Idoltry.

Under the culture, as a mark of respect it's more than common to bow to someone who did good things. A mark of recognition if you will, as you are learning the moves and techniques developed by the person.
When I was studying Tae Kwon Do and even Capoeira we did the same thing. One art being Korean, and the other is Brazilian.

As an example, every Christmas my family and I have a small glass of sherry next to a picture of my great-grandmother as a small bit of recognition and memory of her.

lmaopml

My husband teaches a form of Japanese Karate - It's not based on a religion of any kind, it's basically common sense styled fitness. If there is an undertone, there is nothing bad in it that I can discern, in fact it's more to do with having patience and endurance, but little else....It's a good workout really, and promotes politeness, if nothing else.

I attended a number of different classes in my teenage hey day, I always like keeping fit still do. There was only ever one that I thought was a little weird and I couldn't connect properly with in the sense of a physical work out, and something that was good for wellbeing - The instructor asked me to grab a ball of energy from the earth and I was meant to understand this as a very real thing that I held in my hands - I gave him hairy eyeball and knew it wasn't for me. I was wondering what the story was with people who felt 'heat' that pushed their palms apart from this ball of energy - it couldn't possibly be that they had just been told to rub them together hard.



Weirdos! LOL aren't we all.

Cavehill Red

I'm not a Catholic, but I thought it might be pertinent to add to this discussion. Many Hindus find the phenomenon of Westerners practising what they consider to be a deeply spiritual activity (akin to a Catholic sacrament, in a sense) to be profoundly offensive, given that the Westerners do so without engaging with the spirituality that underpins the practice.
It would be as if Indians engaged in performing mock masses, claiming it helped them lose weight.

lmaopml

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not a Catholic, but I thought it might be pertinent to add to this discussion. Many Hindus find the phenomenon of Westerners practising what they consider to be a deeply spiritual activity (akin to a Catholic sacrament, in a sense) to be profoundly offensive, given that the Westerners do so without engaging with the spirituality that underpins the practice.
It would be as if Indians engaged in performing mock masses, claiming it helped them lose weight.

Hi Cavehill Red, most westerners would understand that Jesus and love of him and his message underpins their practice or declaration of faith.

I'm sorry you find it offensive, but vague generalisations aside, perhaps stick around and learn a little more about the 'people' - we're not perfect by no means, but we are not Hindus either, the common denominator is that we are human beings with a dialogue and something to say to eachother...so speak up by all means.

Cavehill Red

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Cavehill Red, most westerners would understand that Jesus and love of him and his message underpins their practice or declaration of faith.

I'm sorry you find it offensive, but vague generalisations aside, perhaps stick around and learn a little more about the 'people' - we're not perfect by no means, but we are not Hindus either, the common denominator is that we are human beings with a dialogue and something to say to eachother...so speak up by all means.

I didn't say that I found it offensive. I couldn't care one way or the other, just as it wouldn't offend me or please me if Indians did perform mock masses. I was just trying to inform that, from a Hindu perspective, the Western practice of Yoga is quite offensive because to their minds it most definitely is a spiritual practice that forms part of their religion.
Not being Catholic, I wouldn't perform mass, because I would be doing so without the requisite belief system that underpins the practice. Similarly, not being Hindu, I wouldn't perform yoga either.

Doc Farrell

No

Good point cave hill,
I genuinely think that lmaopml misread your initial post.

Cavehill Red

No problem. Hope the point's clear now, anyway.
Speaking as an atheist, I can't see how a definitively spiritual Hindu practice like Yoga is compatible with Catholic dogma. It's incompatible with my spirituality as a non-theist, so I fail to see how it could be compatible with the beliefs of a monotheist.

newmug

No

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No problem. Hope the point's clear now, anyway.
Speaking as an atheist, I can't see how a definitively spiritual Hindu practice like Yoga is compatible with Catholic dogma. It's incompatible with my spirituality as a non-theist, so I fail to see how it could be compatible with the beliefs of a monotheist.

If you're a non-thiest, how can you say you have "spirituality"?

Peregrinus

newmug wrote: »

If you're a non-thiest, how can you say you have "spirituality"?

You must have heard of the human spirit, surely?

newmug

No

Peregrinus wrote: »

You must have heard of the human spirit, surely?

As in the entity thats part of you that exists on in the supernatural when your body dies, or that makey-uppey term people misuse for when you're motivated to do something?

Cos if its the first one, how can you say you believe in the existance of spirituality, the supernatural, etc., and then say you're non-theistic?

Lady Chuckles

No

Aren't things what you make them? Isn't it okay to meditate if you're a Christian and/or Catholic?
I used to do yoga and for me it was mainly about getting some quiet time to myself, de-stressing and streching. Find peace, so to speak. I personally didn't associate it with any religion at all. It was just relaxing and wonderful

... This thread is actually inspiring me to pick it up again

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

Cos if its the first one, how can you say you believe in the existance of spirituality, the supernatural, etc., and then say you're non-theistic?

I'd interpret "non-theist" to imply the rejection of the existence of God, or gods. If that is the case, it could be entirely possible to be spiritual or even religious in some contexts, for example Buddhists are pretty agnostic when it comes to the existence of deities.

Cavehill Red

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd interpret "non-theist" to imply the rejection of the existence of God, or gods. If that is the case, it could be entirely possible to be spiritual or even religious in some contexts, for example Buddhists are pretty agnostic when it comes to the existence of deities.

This. I am primarily a Buddhist who does not believe in divinities. Further, I would argue that even if I was a simple atheist, that I would still have spirituality. It is somewhat amusing to read the opinion that spirituality in the sense of the human spirit is 'makey-uppy' coming from someone who uncritically believes in 'divine revelation' as expressed in a collection of texts I would consider akin to fairy tales.
Anyhow, this is all besides the point. Yoga is a Hindu practice. To perform it as a non-Hindu either brings your own beliefs into debate or else is a simple offence to practising Hindus for whom it is a profoundly religious practice, or both.

newmug

No

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd interpret "non-theist" to imply the rejection of the existence of God, or gods. If that is the case, it could be entirely possible to be spiritual or even religious in some contexts, for example Buddhists are pretty agnostic when it comes to the existence of deities.

Well I'm afraid your interpretation is wrong. A "theism" is an organised religon. And a religion is a club where A)you believe the supernatural / spiritual realm exists, and B)there is some sort of supernatural boss of this club that deserves your adoration.

If either of those elements are missing, its not a theism, its just a philosophy club. And "atheism" and "non-theism" are the same thing, ie the rejection of the belief in any form of supernatural / spiritual existance or of a god.

So if you call yourself a "non-theist", that means you dont believe the supernatural / spiritual exists. Maybe you're closer to an agnostic theist?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Further, I would argue that even if I was a simple atheist, that I would still have spirituality.

Wrong. You need to get your definitions sorted out. Again, I'd say you're closer to an agnostic theist if you really believe that.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It is somewhat amusing to read the opinion that spirituality in the sense of the human spirit is 'makey-uppy'

Give me your definition of "human spirit" then.

Onesimus

No

Looks like Apologist on CAF says it's ok to do.

Cavehill Red

newmug wrote: »

Well I'm afraid your interpretation is wrong. A "theism" is an organised religon. And a religion is a club where A)you believe the supernatural / spiritual realm exists, and B)there is some sort of supernatural boss of this club that deserves your adoration.

Where to begin? A theism need not be an organised religion. It is any belief in divinities. Further, not all theistic belief systems require 'adoration' of their divinities.

newmug wrote: »

If either of those elements are missing, its not a theism, its just a philosophy club. And "atheism" and "non-theism" are the same thing, ie the rejection of the belief in any form of supernatural / spiritual existance or of a god.

Atheism and non-theism are not the same thing. Non-theism is not being a theist. There are many categories of belief or non-belief which do not include theistic beliefs without being atheist. Agnosticism is one.

newmug wrote: »

So if you call yourself a "non-theist", that means you dont believe the supernatural / spiritual exists. Maybe you're closer to an agnostic theist?

I am neither theist nor agnostic. I am, as I said, a Buddhist atheist. The supernatural is not a synonym for the spiritual. However, you make this category error because you fail to acknowledge a form of spirituality which is not based on supernatural beliefs.

newmug wrote: »

Wrong. You need to get your definitions sorted out. Again, I'd say you're closer to an agnostic theist if you really believe that.

My definitions are fine. Yours are erroneous. I refer you to my previous paragraph.

newmug wrote: »

Give me your definition of "human spirit" then.

The self-conscious element of cognition which encompasses mind and will.

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

Well I'm afraid your interpretation is wrong. A "theism" is an organised religon. And a religion is a club where A)you believe the supernatural / spiritual realm exists, and B)there is some sort of supernatural boss of this club that deserves your adoration.

According to Dictionary.com:

Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods.

By your definition, faiths such as Buddhism, and probably Shinoism and various animist traditions aren't religions.

Doc Farrell

No

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This. I am primarily a Buddhist who does not believe in divinities. Further, I would argue that even if I was a simple atheist, that I would still have spirituality. It is somewhat amusing to read the opinion that spirituality in the sense of the human spirit is 'makey-uppy' coming from someone who uncritically believes in 'divine revelation' as expressed in a collection of texts I would consider akin to fairy tales.
Anyhow, this is all besides the point. Yoga is a Hindu practice. To perform it as a non-Hindu either brings your own beliefs into debate or else is a simple offence to practising Hindus for whom it is a profoundly religious practice, or both.

I know plenty of Buddhists who have deities coming out their ears! Also I know an Irish Hindu who teaches yoga to Irish people in Dun Laoghaire and he's not really that religious. Leave yourself some wiggle room cave hill!

As for fairy tale comments, best to put them in the atheism debate thread in case of derailment.

newmug

No

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Where to begin? A theism need not be an organised religion.

Thats EXACTLY thats what it is!

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It is any belief in divinities. Further, not all theistic belief systems require 'adoration' of their divinities.

If you believe in divinities, thats believing in the supernatural / spiritual. And if you acknoweledge a supernatural being (like a dead relative), but dont adore it, then you cant say that that being is a god.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Atheism and non-theism are not the same thing. Non-theism is not being a theist. There are many categories of belief or non-belief which do not include theistic beliefs without being atheist. Agnosticism is one.

They are the same thing. You're talking about anti-theism. Thats where one believes that the supernatural / spiritual exists, but rejects the idea of a god. As you said, agnosticism is one.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The supernatural is not a synonym for the spiritual.

*Facepalm* I suppose "team spirit" is an example of spirituality so....

Cavehill Red wrote: »

However, you make this category error because you fail to acknowledge a form of spirituality which is not based on supernatural beliefs

Now there are "forms" of spirituality? Name one!

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The self-conscious element of cognition which encompasses mind and will.

I think you'll find thats called the "consciousness". If you are unconscious, does that mean your "spirit" has left your body?

Benny_Cake wrote: »

According to Dictionary.com:

Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods.

By your definition, faiths such as Buddhism, and probably Shinoism and various animist traditions aren't religions.

They're not! Sure even poor aul Cavehill there says he's a buddist, and at the same time he's an athiest!

Cavehill Red

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I know plenty of Buddhists who have deities coming out their ears! Also I know an Irish Hindu who teaches yoga to Irish people in Dun Laoghaire and he's not really that religious. Leave yourself some wiggle room cave hill!

As for fairy tale comments, best to put them in the atheism debate thread in case of derailment.

Yes, lots of Buddhists do believe in deities. And others don't. It's a faith that doesn't require belief in a godhead. Some do, and so do not. I do not.
As for your Irish Hindu, I think you answered your own point there. He's not very religious. Religious Hindus are unappreciative of non-practitioners mimicking their religious practices, just as I imagine you might be were people to mimic yours.
It wasn't my intention to derail the topic at all, but to draw your attention to the fact that the Western practice of Yoga causes great offence to practising Hindus. In so doing, I was informed that a perfectly accepted, indeed the most common, understanding of the word spirituality was in fact makey-uppy. I apologise for responding in kind.

me_right_one

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This. I am primarily a Buddhist who does not believe in divinities. Further, I would argue that even if I was a simple atheist, that I would still have spirituality. It is somewhat amusing to read the opinion that spirituality in the sense of the human spirit is 'makey-uppy' coming from someone who uncritically believes in 'divine revelation' as expressed in a collection of texts I would consider akin to fairy tales.
Anyhow, this is all besides the point. Yoga is a Hindu practice. To perform it as a non-Hindu either brings your own beliefs into debate or else is a simple offence to practising Hindus for whom it is a profoundly religious practice, or both.

You do know this is the Christianity forum? And yet you come on here and call the Bible a collection of fairy tales? Cop on will you.

Doc Farrell

No

Fair points all but you lost me on the second last sentence. I seem to be getting slower by the month. Who said that the most common definition of spirituality was makey-uppy?

Edit: all right, calm down people, nothing to see here....

Cavehill Red

newmug wrote: »

Thats EXACTLY thats what it is!

According to you, perhaps. But we've already seen that you're pulling definitions out of your nether regions. The Roman pantheon was a theist belief, yet most Romans considered their gods to be flawed like themselves, requiring occasional placation but not adoration. Similar goes for the Greek and other pantheons.

newmug wrote: »

If you believe in divinities, thats believing in the supernatural / spiritual. And if you acknoweledge a supernatural being (like a dead relative), but dont adore it, then you cant say that that being is a god.

Again, the Romans, Greeks and many others disagree with you.

newmug wrote: »

They are the same thing. You're talking about anti-theism. Thats where one believes that the supernatural / spiritual exists, but rejects the idea of a god. As you said, agnosticism is one.

Again, you're making stuff up to suit yourself. Atheism comes from a, meaning without and theos, meaning god. That's all it means. A lack of belief in Gods. Anti-theism would mean something different, an opposition to belief in Gods. Occasionally the two positions overlap, but they are not the same. I would not oppose belief in Gods, though I personally don't believe in any.

newmug wrote: »

*Facepalm* I suppose "team spirit" is an example of spirituality so....

Actually, the clue is in the phrase for you.

newmug wrote: »

Now there are "forms" of spirituality? Name one!

There is your form of spirituality which requires belief in supernatural entities, and there is mine which does not. That's for starters.

newmug wrote: »

I think you'll find thats called the "consciousness". If you are unconscious, does that mean your "spirit" has left your body?

No, animals are conscious but not self-aware, nor do they possess will or mind as we do.

newmug wrote: »

They're not! Sure even poor aul Cavehill there says he's a buddist, and at the same time he's an athiest!

Of course Buddhism, Shintoism and Animist beliefs are religions. As for the concept of atheist Buddhism, have a look here. Also, may I recommend this book for you.

Cavehill Red

me_right_one wrote: »

You do know this is the Christianity forum? And yet you come on here and call the Bible a collection of fairy tales? Cop on will you.

I know where I am posting. I was insulted by being told that my spirituality was 'makey-uppy', and responded in kind. I have already apologised for that and look forward to a similar level of respect being offered to me.

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

They're not! Sure even poor aul Cavehill there says he's a buddist, and at the same time he's an athiest!

It's not that Buddhists are atheist - some believe in God/gods, some don't, but the vast majority don't care-they don't see it as important. I'm a Christian myself, but I would still accept that Buddhism is a religion, by any step of the imagination it has all the features of a religion.

Doc Farrell

No

I read Stephen bachelors book, the biography parts and his tracing the footsteps of the historical Buddha were very interesting but unfortunately I can't remember where he ended up at the end. I know he's still a practicing Buddhist but I'm not sure if he's a part of any tradition anymore....?

Edit: a sentence which has stayed with from a Buddhist is that some Buddhists question the concept of God but not the nature of God. At the time I thought that was a pretty mind blowing sentence, I guess you had to be there.....

newmug

No

Cavehill Red wrote: »

In so doing, I was informed that a perfectly accepted, indeed the most common, understanding of the word spirituality was in fact makey-uppy. I apologise for responding in kind.

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Fair points all but you lost me on the second last sentence. I seem to be getting slower by the month. Who said that the most common definition of spirituality was makey-uppy?...

It was me, I brought it up. I wasnt referring to the most common definition of spirituality (which by the way, is the Catholic understanding. 3 billion people in the world, 2 billion of those are Christian, and 60%+ of those are Catholic. Thats a fact. I think that should be the end of this arguement), I was actually referring to the poster who said they had attended a class where you were supposed to "grab a ball of Earth energy". By anyones standard, even a spiritual non-theistic buddhist athiest, thats makey-uppey.

Cavehill Red

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I read Stephen bachelors book, the biography parts and his tracing the footsteps of the historical Buddha were very interesting but unfortunately I can't remember where he ended up at the end. I know he's still a practicing Buddhist but I'm not sure if he's a part of any tradition anymore....?

He trained in Tibetan and Zen forms, but these days is associated with pragmatic Buddhism.

Doc Farrell

No

Ok, well its time for me to get my makey uppy energy sleep. So play nice!

Cavehill Red

newmug wrote: »

It was me, I brought it up. I wasnt referring to the most common definition of spirituality (which by the way, is the Catholic understanding. 3 billion people in the world, 2 billion of those are Christian, and 60%+ of those are Catholic. Thats a fact. I think that should be the end of this arguement), I was actually referring to the poster who said they had attended a class where you were supposed to "grab a ball of Earth energy". By anyones standard, even a spiritual non-theistic buddhist athiest, thats makey-uppey.

Actually, there are 7 billion people on the planet, and Catholics do not form a majority of Christians. Further, many Catholics counted by the church are not actually Catholics and have been actively prevented from withholding themselves from the Vatican's count. By your logic, the most prevalent form of spirituality is Mormonism, which claims not only everyone on Earth but all the dead too.
I said, as an atheist, that I possessed spirituality and you told me flat-out that I was wrong, having stated that such a concept was 'makey-uppy'. Having apologised for offending your beliefs by stating exactly the same thing, I await your respect for my beliefs represented in a similar apology.

newmug

No

Peregrinus wrote: »

You must have heard of the human spirit, surely?

newmug wrote: »

As in the entity thats part of you that exists on in the supernatural when your body dies, or that makey-uppey term people misuse for when you're motivated to do something?

Cos if its the first one, how can you say you believe in the existance of spirituality, the supernatural, etc., and then say you're non-theistic?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Actually, there are 7 billion people on the planet, and Catholics do not form a majority of Christians. Further, many Catholics counted by the church are not actually Catholics and have been actively prevented from withholding themselves from the Vatican's count. By your logic, the most prevalent form of spirituality is Mormonism, which claims not only everyone on Earth but all the dead too.
I said, as an atheist, that I possessed spirituality and you told me flat-out that I was wrong, having stated that such a concept was 'makey-uppy'. Having apologised for offending your beliefs by stating exactly the same thing, I await your respect for my beliefs represented in a similar apology.

Cavehill, where oh where oh where do you get your facts? My makey-uppey comment was to Peregrinus, as you can see above. You hadn't even outlined anything about you being a non-theist buddhist at that stage.

Then when you revealed your position, I did say that you were wrong, and suggested that you were probably nearer to being agnostic (from the default Christian POV, this being the Christian forum and all!).

As for the most commonly accepted understanding of spirituality, A) neither of us actually counted the planets' population, and most of the other mainstream non-Christain religions have a similar understanding to the Christian one, ie that a supernatural / spiritual realm exists, and that your soul / spirit will reside there when your body dies. I think you know you're beat on that one.

Furthermore, I wasnt offended by anything you said, I never said anything of the sort, so I dont know where you're going with all this apology stuff. But if I offended you, then I didnt mean to, and I'm sorry.