Well, I seem to recall him being a rabbi or something. But, indeed, he was not a schoolteacher.

um carpenter last I heard

That too. Rabbis had to have actual jobs and families. Which is actually a point that people who believe Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married often use.

Jesus was most certainly not a Rabbi. Growing up in a strictly Orthodox Jewish school, we actually learned more about Jesus from information outside of the New Testament than most children in Catholic schools will learn. Jesus was strongly opposed to the Rabbinical community, with most of his vehemence being headed off to the Kohanim (high priest's). While he used the temple's as a platform to spread his word, it was not in the capacity of Rabbi. As a matter of fact, he was ostracized from the Jewish community at a very young age for apparently using the Shaim Hashem (the 50 letter name of G-d that no one knows anymore) to perform his miracles. Obviously it's all a bunch of hearsay, since no one knows anything about Jesus outside of the jumbled stories of the New Testament, but it sheds an interesting light on him.

Sorry for the rambling. Religious stuff always gets me going.

Religious stuff tends to do that to people, so I undertand.

What I meant by the Rabbi thing was, to the very sort of Christians that the article describes...he was a Rabbi.

Sorry to be a dick, but that is a fucking awesome typo.

Don't start. They can't even do that at the schools down here anymore, because of these people.

Based on the Christians in this story... he's quite right.

I think that's ridiculous.

To quote definition #2 from dictionary.com "any of the methods or disciplines prescribed, esp. a series of postures and breathing exercises practiced to achieve control of the body and mind, tranquillity, etc." I think this definition is probably closer to the general understanding of yoga in the west.

If the system of postures and exercises promote a desirable physical outcome, then there's no reason other people shouldn't see fit to appropriate them for use - even if they feel like stripping off the Hindu philosophical aspects. Maybe it's not "yoga" anymore, so good luck to you if you want to change the way the particular term is used in English.

Joseph Pilates certainly appropriated what he thought was useful from yoga and combined it with other exercise practices when he was developing his exercise program.

and in doing so, and not calling it Yoga, he relieved his practice of its harmful appropriative elements while retaining the positive approrations. I'm not going to go get drunk at the bar and call it taking communion. That would be disrespectful. Sure, drinking is a part of the communion ritual, but there's a lot more to it. I realize I'm not likely to change the way the term is used in English, but can you blame me for trying? I was an Asian Studies major in college, and my focus was on Ancient Chinese history, so my knowledge of Hindu practices is a little light, but what I do know is that what we call 'yoga' is one aspect of one of the four major pillars of Yoga, each of which is a path to ultimate enlightenment. The different practices range from philosophical contemplation, to self deprivation, to chanting the name of God constantly. Forgive me for saying so, but it just seems to me that a bunch of suburban housewives calling their afternoon exercise yoga just kind of trivializes the whole thing. If an individual is practicing yoga as a spiritual thing, even if it's not in a Hindu context, that's one thing. If it's part of an elementary school's weight reduction program, that's another thing entirely.

What I love about these people is that the only time they want alternative points of view taught is when there *are* no credible alternative points of view.

that's the thing...is it the christians or just the radical ones. i would hardly consider myself radical in any way. as a matter of fact crisp, i believe it was you who criticized me for lumping regular muslims in with the so called radical muslims. what's the dif?

ahem

notice how i'm not talking about all christians, just the more radical ones. how's that "lumping" anything? i'm clearly differentiating between the more radical christians and the regular ones. hell, i'm not even mentioning the regular ones, just the more radical ones. learn to read. hopefully my obnoxious repition will aid your faulty comprehension.

anyways, aside from the snide "spoken from experience" part, the rest was not addressed to you specifically.

If there were a "credible, legitimate, opposing view" I would be all for it being shown with this video. But such an opposing view does not exist.