Posted on 10/22/2002 5:11:40 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood
It never ceases to amaze me that most Christians would criticize me for being an atheist, yet they will "celebrate" a macabre pagan holiday. They inculcate their children into the practice of it and feed them the most unhealthful things you could give a child to eat.
Likewise, many atheists criticize me for being a "right-winger." Most atheists are so caught up in their polemics, they have become nothing more than anti-Christians - or what I call the Religious Left (a collaboration of the Marxist religion, neo-pagan animal/tree/earth worshipper eco-fascists and general technophobes).
Why do you "celebrate" on certain "holidays," what are you celebrating, do you really know? Or have you been so lost in the conformity of it all to really take a look at what you partake in?
As you ponder this, two noted Christian philosophers support my secular argument...
Søren Kierkegaard from The Sickness Unto Death:
The fantastic is, of course, most closely related to the imagination [Phantasien], but the imagination is related in it’s turn to feeling, understanding, and will, so that a person’s feelings, understanding and will may be fantastic. Fantasy is, in general the medium of infinitization… (emphasis mine)
The fantastic is generally speaking what carries a person into the infinite in such a way that it only leads him away from himself and thus prevents him from coming back to himself.
Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan:
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of DarknessChap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.
[14] An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible: in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight, are only images; such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or refraction; or of the sun or stars by direct vision in the air; which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable, by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our imagination, and in our dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible.
[15] It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.
[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature.
As you think further, exactly what is Halloween?
Originally, All Hallows' Eve was one of the great fire festivals of Britain at the time of the Druids. In Scotland it was associated with the time when the spirits of the dead, the demons, witches, and sorcerers were usually active and propitious.
Paradoxically, All Hallows' Eve was also a night when young people performed magical rituals to determine their future marriage partners. The youth of the villages carried on with much merry-making and sensual revelry, but the older people took great care to safeguard their homes from the evil spirits, witches, and demons who had exceptional power that night...
Can you guess my source here???
Boy, if that was true, then Christianity would be more narrow minded and strict than the Wahabbie version of Shiite Islam.
Somehow I don't see Jesus Christ getting upset about a holiday where little kids delight in dressing up, and where older folks have fun pretending not to know the kid and pretend being scared, and then giving the kid candy. I have the feeling he'd laugh and approve, just like he approved of a good party and celebrating at a boisterous wedding.
Now, if all Christians decide to be "pure" and withdraw from the the positive aspects of Haloween, you WILL have a problem: it will descend to what we used to see in Detroit on "devil's eve": Fires, vandalism, and torturing animals.
So have your kids party dressed like heroes. Admiring a person who serves Christ by risking his life as a fireman or astronaut for a good cause is not idolotry, any more than having a picture of your mom on the mantle is idolotry. Get real.
The point I am trying to drive into the mushy skulls out there is that these "phantastical images" do have their manifestations in the real world.
While I doubt there is a coven of witches at abortion clinics actively performing the murder in a religious ceremony, the practice of abortion occurs in much the same way, as to be an image of the original practice.
Much is the same with things like Halloween and the Satanic family altar of television, fantasy games, etc...
But, alas, there is no hope to convince those of little faith or patience to delve into the origins of this World's ills.
The point I am trying to drive into the mushy skulls out there is that these "phantastical images" do have their manifestations in the real world.
While I doubt there is a coven of witches at abortion clinics actively performing the murder in a religious ceremony, the practice of abortion occurs in much the same way, as to be an image of the original practice.
Much is the same with things like Halloween and the Satanic family altar of television, fantasy games, etc...
But, alas, there is no hope to convince those of little faith or patience to delve into the origins of this World's ills.
Actually, Dashwood, I recall a couple of years ago reading a poll that reported that over sixty per cent of abortuary workers answered that they were Wiccan or pagan. You may be closer to the truth than you imagined.
Boy, if that was true, then Christianity would be more narrow minded and strict than the Wahabbie version of Shiite Islam.
Not so. Islamics emulate Mohammed who was a violent murderer. Christians are supposed to emulate Jesus who was a peaceful man. Bad comparison on your part.
-
Somehow I don't see Jesus Christ getting upset about a holiday... I have the feeling he'd laugh and approve, just like he approved of a good party and celebrating at a boisterous wedding.
He sure got upset about the money changers in that temple. If they had been celebrating a pagan holiday in that temple, I think the reaction may have been similar...
Evidence of the "phantastical images" Hobbes spoke of?
Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]
Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.
To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discrimminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...
To bolster some of my assertions:
-
"What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense."
About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
-
The issue of polygamy is an Achille's heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.
Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.
The First Amendment is very unambiguous. The creationist cultural patent of monogamy is an establishment of religion in the law. The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.
In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...
Before you blindly REACT to WHAT I am saying, reflect a moment on WHY I am saying it...
The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.
The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire. Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.] One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.
This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered: The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.
An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.
Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child? Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." Your "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.
The ritual murder of the innocent unborn without a trial is not equivelant to the fair adjudication of a just capital sentence carried out in a fair trial.
If just one of these defendants makes the Roe v. Wade argument, we may see an complete overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Pretend this is written in the new testament: "Then came the night of the dead celebrated by pagan and heathen everywhere. And Jesus put on garments so that his appearance was altered. And he sayeth thus 'Instead of keeping the days setteth apart by me through my father, I now ordaineth that you shall setteth aside this day instead.' And the people clappeth and cheereth because they no longer wished to keep the days holy.
The point of this (besides demonstrating my horrible writing skills) is that God, through Christ, ordained certain days as holy to him. He described certain other practices as abominations to him.
Our society has not replaced pagan days with holy days. Our society has replaced holy days with pagan days.
(BTW, I am not equating the Lord's appearances to Halloween -- I am just wanting to follow up on your arguement.
I think that his glorified body could be manifested in any way he desired. I think the reason why he didn't manifest exactly as he was in physical life was to teach his disciples a lesson: Namely that the resurrection was real but also that the spiritual body you received was different from the physical.
That being said being costumed isn't the main point. The main point is that God, through Christ, ordained certain days as holy and man has thrown those aside to keep pagan days instead.
This is partly what I have been saying, in a secular sense, concerning the modern ritualization of old pagan practices...
And you are right. But for those not professing to follow God it's kind of a non-issue. But as soon as God taps someone on the shoulder, reveals truth and says "follow me" then they had better think long and hard about what they are participating in.
First of all, Paul sides with those who want to eat the meat sacrificed to idols because we, in fact, do have the freedom to do so. Eating meat sacrificed to idols will not, in and of itself, get you thrown into hell, much like participation in Halloween, in and of itself, will not jepordize your salvation. However, if you would have read the rest of my post, which it seems you did not, you would have seen that Paul then suggest that, even though we have the freedom to do these things, actually doing them might not be the best of ideas.
I guess I should have laid some more groundwork to make my position a little clearer.
Now, I myself would not consider Halloween a "harmless evening of fun". While you might think that there is no sacrificing or paganism to Halloween, I think it is extremely obvious that there are some basic, entry-level associations with the demonic and the occult that are intrinsic to this day. And, as the influence of the occult increases in modern culture, through what some people may consider harmless activities, such as participation in Halloween, ouija boards, or even through television shows like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” which actually glamorise the demonic and the occult, so increases the lure of the demonic and the occult, for those who don’t believe in God as well as for those who do.
In regards to Halloween, if we participate in something that might cause a weaker brother or sister to stumble, let alone give the impression to the non-believer that Halloween is, indeed, a “harmless” holiday, then maybe this, more than anything, is the best argument to put aside our freedom and avoid this holiday. Again I say, edification is more important than our personal gratification.
Listen, if you want a verse that says "Do not do this thing" then you won't get it. It doesn't exist. If, however, you want to set your heart and mind towards something a little closer to "Thy will be done" rather than "My will be done", Scripture suggests that you should avoid any customs, such as the practice of Halloween, that glorifies that which God calls evil. This might mean avoiding anything that glorifies the occult, witchcraft, the devil or the demonic, death or violence or promotes these things as positive and/or fun (i.e. costumes, decoration, music and stories that glorifiy the demonic and the occult).
Another persons edification is more important that your personal gratification.
I'm sorry if American have secularized holy days into pagan holidays. This is the fruit of Calvanism: That claims any frivolity is evil. This idea goes way back to Gnosticism, if you know your bible studies, which is the idea that anything of the human body is evil, and only the spirit is good.
Catholics traditionally have tried to take the good of every culture, and "baptise" it, i.e. find Christian meaning in it.
So the day of the winter equinox, where hope is reborn astrologically, and which the Romans celebrated by letting the slaves and masters take each other's places, was baptised as the birth of Christ, using the symbolism to explain Christian beliefs, that hope is now present, that the meek shall inherit the earth.
You might try reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy. He explains the Christian meaning of joy and fun better than I am able to.
As for Christ dressing up for a 'pagan ceremony': isn't there a parable about a guy thrown out from a wedding feast because he didn't wear the right wedding garment? Wasn't Christ criticized for eating and drinking with sinners? Wasn't his first miracle performed at a wedding feast-- and Near Eastern weddings were pretty rambunctious.
When the people of Israel danced before the golden calf, God got mad. But when David celebrated and danced in front of the ark, God was pleased. (David's wife was mortified, but God approved).
As for holy days, didn't Paul instruct people not to argue about which days to celebrate the Lord? If you celebrate, you are honoring God. If you chose not to celebrate, because you are honoring God, you also honor God. But,Paul cautions, don't condemn your brothers for having different ideas than you have about this.
He sure got upset about the money changers in that temple. If they had been celebrating a pagan holiday in that temple, I think the reaction may have been similar...
I think I found the communication problem.
YOu see Haloween ONLY as a pagan holiday, and insist that if we celebrate it, we are sinning.
I see Haloween as an extention of All Saints day and All Soul's day. I see it as a Catholic holiday that has been a cheerful Christian celebration for hundreds of years, but that has been reverting to it's pre christian roots over the last 15 years or so, mainly due to the secularization of our culture.
Rom 14:5-12 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
In other words, Christians who decline to celebrate a holiday because it is "pagan" are praising the Lord.
But those of us who use the holiday to encourage our children to "pretend" to be heroes, and to have fun visiting the neighbors in exchange in candy are also praising the Lord.
Now, if we celebrate Haloween by killing a black cat, burning down the local Baptist church, or cutting all the tires of the local cars, and consider that this is the only way to celebrate Haloween, then I would agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.