Michie said:

Q: Can you explain the church’s teachings about yoga and reiki? Recently a priest gave a presentation in which he said that, to avoid the devil, Catholics should also avoid things like palm readers and ouija boards. He also mentioned yoga and reiki. I’ve practiced yoga on and off for many years and have found no religious references to it in my practices. My experience has been a western, non-religious practice for strength, deep breathing and calmness. I became familiar with reiki when I had cancer and received reiki treatments. Over recent years, medical practices and hospitals use reiki to help patients with relaxation and pain reduction.

A: First, this priest was absolutely correct in saying that Catholics should avoid things like palm readers, ouija boards or anything else related to the occult. Not only can engaging in such activities open us up to contact with evil spirits, but these activities are also a sin against the first commandment.

Continued below.

What is Church teaching on yoga and reiki?

Explores the Catholic Church’s perspective on yoga and reiki, distinguishing physical practices from spiritual risks with guidance.

www.oursundayvisitor.com

Click to expand...

What about acupressure? I think my priest said it’s ok to do.

MrMoe said:

The most obvious Kafka Trap I’ve seen on this forum.



Argumentum ad ignorantiam
(argument from ignorance).

Basically, your claim relies on the absence of evidence as evidence itself, which is not a valid form of reasoning.



I’m sure you have proof of ice preventing people from doing these things.

From the footage you posted I can see people walking in and around the park areas.



If military simply showing up in public constitutes a perpetual police state to you then America has been a police state for a long time. Well before Trump.

Would you prefer lawlessness be the norm?

Click to expand...

What’s happening here in LA is not normal. If it was lawlessness before ICE showed up then yes, I much prefer that. Things were peaceful here just a few weeks ago.

Apple Sky said:

I've yet to see water, level it's self out on a ball.

Click to expand...

Of course not, because balls (footballs, tennis balls, cricket balls, etc) are all likely to fall to the earth because of their weight, and so is any water one might try to put on them. The weight of the earth does not make it fall to the earth - that doesn't even make sense - but the water is attracted to the earth because of the weight of that water.

I didn’t know he’s Catholic. Cool!

Fervent said:

You sure seemed insistent upon it earlier. So what is this opinion built on? How do you justify it?

Click to expand...

When I was in the mental ward I believed I was in a simulation. I believed that the flat earth or Mormonism could be true because they are physically possible in a simulation. But those two events - the upside-down Bible and the Connect 4 set showed me that it seems evidence of God seemed to happen in non-obvious ways - in ways that couldn't be proven to other people. That basically sums up the Futurama God quote. So the world gives the impression that it is just naturalistic. I also had experiences related to Maundy Thursday.

Apple Sky said:

Just like the earth, bound in via Antarctica.

Job 38:10 - When I fixed its boundaries and set in place its bars and doors, and I declared: ‘You may come this far, but no farther; here your proud waves must stop’?

Click to expand...

But what in Job 38:10 shows that Antarctica is meant? Looking at that verse in context, we find that God is talking to Job about the sea generally, not specifically the sea in the Antarctic region:

“8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors, When it burst forth and issued from the womb; 9 When I made the clouds its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band; 10 When I fixed My limit for it, And set bars and doors; 11 When I said, ‘This far you may come, but no farther, And here your proud waves must stop!’” (Job 38:8-11 NKJV)

Talking about stopping, I hope that if you feel the slightest bad effects health-wise from being back here, you will take another break. It's good to have you back, but don't make yourself ill

JohnClay said:

I'm just sharing my thoughts (my surprise that they reject a key pillar of Christianity), not trying to win a perfect (fallacy-free) debate to prove that there was no resurrection.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't really share your surprise. There are all manners of people who self-identify as Christians while rejecting key elements.

JohnClay said:

Then what about why Christians can become atheists in general? Is it just because they were ignorant of the best arguments for Christianity? Then there are atheists that become Christians.

Click to expand...

Generally, it's not a matter of arguments. People rarely make those kinds of transitions based on examining the arguments and weighing them against each other, arguments tend to come after the fact. More often the issues are social and cultural, where intellectual issues come into play is acting like a lawyer justifying a conclusion rather than critically evaluating the arguments from any sort of objective criteria or consistent hermeneutic.

Fervent said:

You've presented nothing by way of argumentation, other than employing a fallacy.

Click to expand...

I'm just sharing my thoughts (my surprise that they reject a key pillar of Christianity), not trying to win a perfect (fallacy-free) debate to prove that there was no resurrection.

Fervent said:

And as I said earlier, I don't think the case for the resurrection is "watertight", simply that with what evidence is available it is the best explanation.

Click to expand...

Then what about why Christians can become atheists in general? Is it just because they were ignorant of the best arguments for Christianity? Then there are atheists that become Christians.

JohnClay said:

One possibility is an observer substance - though I don't see any evidence of related phenomena like telepathy. Also my simulation belief can be used to explain absolutely anything that is miraculous.

Click to expand...

Ok, though that's neither here nor there.

JohnClay said:

It sounds like "God of the gaps".

Click to expand...

If I were arguing "there are mysteries, therefore God" it certainly would be. But it is equally naturalism of the gaps to assume that such mysteries will give way to naturalistic explanation. In both cases, it involves making a sampling error that begs the question.

JohnClay said:

I believe that God has a sense of humour. BTW another thing that happened in my hospital stay in 2019 was this:

I realised that there were 42 holes in Connect 4 and that 42 was related to the ultimate question so I thought I'd count the pieces and there were exactly 42 but not 21 of each like there is supposed to be. There were 19 and 23 which are special numbers - prime numbers. The question that goes with "42" was said to be

Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Ok

JohnClay said:

"What do you get if you multiply six by nine?"
The author was an atheist and I suspect that is partly why he didn't involve the number 7. It should be "what's 6 times 7". I think 7 is related to God and 6 is related to man. So I think it is related to life being about the interaction with God and man. And again only I felt this as an interaction with an intelligent force. Everyone else would see it as a coincidence. But like I said, Connect 4 sets always have 21 pieces of each colour. Though eventually I tracked down the set (a non-original brand) and it had 23 of each colour but then they must have lost 4 red pieces.

Click to expand...

Ok

JohnClay said:

Like I said it is just my opinion. I'm not saying I've proven it as Truth.

Click to expand...

You sure seemed insistent upon it earlier. So what is this opinion built on? How do you justify it?

Fervent said:

No, at least not exclusively perhaps. There's a plethora of phenomenon with no current explanation. I suppose the most critical would be consciousness,

Click to expand...

One possibility is an observer substance - though I don't see any evidence of related phenomena like telepathy. Also my simulation belief can be used to explain absolutely anything that is miraculous.

Fervent said:

but I wasn't specifically thinking of particulars. Both common and historical events exist that escape explanation, beyond highly speculative theories.

Click to expand...

It sounds like "God of the gaps".

Fervent said:

Yes, you've mentioned that. But an agnostic cartoon comedy writer is a questionable source for philosophic/theological truth. It is a good line, though.

Click to expand...

I believe that God has a sense of humour. BTW another thing that happened in my hospital stay in 2019 was this:

I realised that there were 42 holes in Connect 4 and that 42 was related to the ultimate question so I thought I'd count the pieces and there were exactly 42 but not 21 of each like there is supposed to be. There were 19 and 23 which are special numbers - prime numbers. The question that goes with "42" was said to be
"What do you get if you multiply six by nine?"
The author was an atheist and I suspect that is partly why he didn't involve the number 7. It should be "what's 6 times 7". I think 7 is related to God and 6 is related to man. So I think it is related to life being about the interaction with God and man. And again only I felt this as an interaction with an intelligent force. Everyone else would see it as a coincidence. But like I said, Connect 4 sets always have 21 pieces of each colour. Though eventually I tracked down the set (a non-original brand) and it had 23 of each colour but then they must have lost 4 red pieces.

Fervent said:

The "rules" of physics are hardly predictable, and it's rather presumptuous to believe that our current mechanical understanding of reality is reflective of anything more than our ability to improve our conjecture when our theories start to fail. If all you mean is that there is a generally ordered reality that allows us to reasonably make probabilistic predictions then you're not really saying much, and you're exceeding the epistemic warrant of the reasoning that produces our models of "physics" when you take them to be absolute.

Click to expand...

Like I said it is just my opinion. I'm not saying I've proven it as Truth.

Apple Sky said:

Have you ever watched a ship disappear over the horizon ? If so, take a telescope & watch it magically zoom back in to full view.

Click to expand...

This is trivially false, yet you have repeated this claim multiple times. You put yourself up for ridicule every time you say this.

JohnClay said:

I'm not saying I've disproven the physical resurrection, just that it isn't as watertight as you think it is. If MLK and the bishop think that unreasonable arguments are reasonable there must be another reason. Perhaps they believe it for fallacious reasons. But on the other hand I think a lot of religious people also believe things for fallacious reasons. What do they have to gain from disbelief in the resurrection? They would lose their salvation. Maybe they think they're smart for siding with the liberal skeptics? I think the only reason I keep bringing up MLK and the bishop is that I find it surprising. I mean they're Christians and they apparently disbelieve one of the key requirements of being a saved Christian. And the bishop told the world about it which could cause a backlash. Or maybe it made him more popular as well?

Click to expand...

You've presented nothing by way of argumentation, other than employing a fallacy. Why they believed what they believed isn't really material to our discussion, simply the manner in which you're appropriating their opinions. As for their self-identifying as Christians while denying a major tenet of Christianity, there's nothing particularly interesting about that as there are all manner of aberant beliefs out there. Whatever there reasons were, they don't speak to the issue without their arguments being presented. A lot of people believe a lot of things for fallacious reasons, but your clinging to them as an argument is a fallacious argument. Their opinion is only relevant if they had access to something beyond what is available to everybody else, and then it is only whatever it is that was available to them that is of interest. Their opinion says nothing about the strength of arguments that convinced them.

And as I said earlier, I don't think the case for the resurrection is "watertight", simply that with what evidence is available it is the best explanation. And when I say that, I mean that it is the most parsimonius so long as we don't load the deck before considering the evidence such that it is.

ozso said:

I meant explain the first part of your post.

Click to expand...

Well, the title says: "teachers can't demand students, staff use wrong pronouns:"

It took most of the article for them to explain that a teacher that identified as a different sex can't force students to refer them with a pronoun of their choice.

Fervent said:

So you've transitioned from argument to authority to argumentum ad populem. Keep going, maybe you can hit every species of ad hominem.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying I've disproven the physical resurrection, just that it isn't as watertight as you think it is. If MLK and the bishop think that unreasonable arguments are reasonable there must be another reason. Perhaps they believe it for fallacious reasons. But on the other hand I think a lot of religious people also believe things for fallacious reasons. What do they have to gain from disbelief in the resurrection? They would lose their salvation. Maybe they think they're smart for siding with the liberal skeptics? I think the only reason I keep bringing up MLK and the bishop is that I find it surprising. I mean they're Christians and they apparently disbelieve one of the key requirements of being a saved Christian. And the bishop told the world about it which could cause a backlash. Or maybe it made him more popular as well?

I know some electricians who are pretty firm believers in grounding.

ozso said:

Other than asking someone to not attend church there, what form of discipline is being talked about? Grounding them? Sending them to bed without supper? Taking away their video game console? Public shaming them?

Click to expand...

From the quote in the OP, I'm guessing its stuff like being stripped of a Deacon position or other church appointment. Perhaps loss of membership in some cases, or in liturgical denominations denial of the Host if they practice closed communion.

Canuckster said:

I find it does the opposite. Connecting the title of "man" with God equates Him to what He created. There's an infinite difference between a man of anything, and the God of everything. When Joshua met Him, He was referred to as "Commander of the Lord's army", much more appropriate than "man of war".

Click to expand...

In the Bible, we encounter both images: G-d as a “man of war” and as “commander of the Lord's army”.

In Ex 15:3, G-d is described as a mighty warrior who freed Israel from slavery. It is not about violence for violence's sake, but about G-d's intervention for justice and salvation.

In Josh 5:14, G-d reveals Himself as the commander-in-chief who has the overview and leads His heavenly and earthly armies.

Both images show G-d's power and sovereignty. He fights for his people, but always for the good, not arbitrarily. As “commander,” He leads; as “warrior,” He intervenes when necessary.

RandyPNW said:

True, James indicated Faith cannot be alone. But the Protestant formula "Faith Alone" always intended to have a context, and not be taken insensibly and without context.

In context, "Faith Alone" is speaking of the means of Justification. We have faith in Christ who alone did the work of our Justification.

Our own works did not justify us. Hence, "Faith Alone" is the basis of our Justification--not our own works of Self-Justification. It is our faith in Christ that enables our Justification because his works alone was able to justify us.

There are works we do that contribute to our being justified, but these works are not the basis of our Justification. One of our "works" is to simply believe that Christ is our means of Justification.

Another "work" that we do, in our approach to "being justified," is repenting. We repent in order to give Christ the place in our life where otherwise there is only independent initiative.

So, we must believe in Christ and we must repent, making him the primary inspiration in our life. These works do not justify us but they approach Christ who alone did the work of justifying us.

Click to expand...

One of the issues is that slogans remove all context and tend to take on a life of their own. So while sola fide when understood in its proper context, and with appropriate nuance, would likely be acceptable to all mainstream Christians, it has led to a great deal of confusion and the rise of antinomian heresy among mainline Protestants. This has been especially problematic because of the polemical nature of the discussion, as Catholics have gotten a lot of mileage out of ignoring the nuance and context and Protestants have leaned into more extreme presentations of the doctrine in a sort of purity test in separating themselves from Catholics.

There are real benefits to grounding, but they have nothing to do necessarily with any New Age beliefs. Grounding increases propriception, the awareness of ones body, so it can help the integration of experiences, which are sometimes overwhelming, as well as increasing ones ability for emotional processing and reduce dissociation.

I also think Christians should be cautious of dismissing bioenergetic medicine out of hand. While the idea of subtle energy may appear strange to certain Evangelicals used to operating from Kantian or Cartesian categories, subtle energy is not wholely foreign to some Christian traditions or theologies, which do see grace as mediated through physical means, as well as theologies that focus on reality as being in process, and dynamic.

timothyu said:

Define please

Click to expand...

God is a covenant God. When we walk with God in a covenant relationship we have a partnership and we have an agreement. Independent Initiative means there is no partnership and no agreement. No covenant relationship.

All one is left with without God's partnership is Independent Initiative. We do not consult God, but use Him for our own ends, and not for His ends. That is the definition of Sin--the knowledge of good and evil and living with Independent Initiative with the choice to pursue either apart from God's direction.

timothyu said:

So it was more a matter of an internal split between Sadducees, Pharisees and the 'outsiders' Essenes'?

Click to expand...

The rejection of Jesus was complex and cannot be attributed solely to the division between Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. The common people were also divided; e.g., John 7:43. Many were fascinated, others disappointed because Jesus did not meet their expectations. The Sadducees felt threatened by Jesus' criticism of the temple and his popularity. Many Pharisees rejected Jesus because he questioned their traditions, but some, like Nicodemus, were open-minded. The Essenes are not mentioned directly. They did not play a major role in the rejection of Jesus.

bbbbbbb said:

When physical death, which is the wages of sin, is fully eliminated by God, then we will know with a certainty that God has, indeed, entangled Himself with the wages of sin. In the meantime, God has yet to spare anyone from those wages.

Click to expand...

How about Moses on the mount - clearly saved by the timeless event of the Cross, and in his glorious body, yet a murderer. Saved by the blood of Jesus which broke the curse of the law that demanded eternal death. And I don't expect Moses and Elijah are the only resurrected saints in eternity already...