Question the Practice of Halloween... Or the Christian Practice of Satanism

To: Catholicguy

That just makes sense. Rnmom0f7 and drstevej says it applies to them and all their works.

Never said that ..What is not of faith is sin...man made, man pleasing work intended to impress God or men or win the approval of men are filthy rags to God..works of Faith are a sweet thing to God..He takes great pleasure in works that grow out of what he puts in the heart of men

226 posted on 10/28/2002 3:44 PM EST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

(Your own personal opinion of scripture thread)

CG I never said ALL our works are filthy rags..that is what you read I said

<> Actually, what you said was FAR WORSE. You make your errors God's Divine Revelation. You have NO shame... <>

God said all our works are filthy rags..do you think he changed His mind? Those are Gods words not mine.. <>( NO. MOM THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS. AND NOW YOU ARE DENYING YOU SAID THEM)<>

The Bride of Christ WILL be in a spotless white garment..because she will be wearing the righteousnes of Christ..THAT was the point in Isa. and it was the point in many New Testament scriptures..God is Holy and righteous..we can not even see Him ..because the bible says if any man sees God he will die Our pitiful attempts to be holy are nothing ..next to Gods holiness they are filthy I believe that most Catholics do not believe that they believe they earn their salvation, I just do not think many have thought it through the fact that there are "requirments" and that in a sense they are works based..I do this and God gives me His grace. I do not do that and God is pleased .... 331 posted on 10/24/02 3:34 PM Eastern by RnMomof7 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies | Report Abuse

455 posted on 10/25/2002 11:23 AM EDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

<> I apologise if I mischaracterised your views. I recalled you agreeing with Mom's intpretation of Isaias 64:6. I am happy both to learn you don't and to have an opportunity to correct my error.

I think much of the confusion results form the controversies of the 16th century. I will provide a link that I think fairly characterises the controversies

Instead of adressing each of those six specifically, I think a general overview is important first<>

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

Controversies on Grace link

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm

Grace link

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Justification link

<> Yes. I did my penance. I always do whenever I go to Confession.<> Ahhh but no repentance...:>) Your penance does not count... 224 posted on 10/28/2002 3:39 PM EST by RnMomof7Do you realise that you are judging my soul? Who made you God? <>

Here is a protestant sola scripturist who was led by the Holy Spirit to a correct interpretation of scripture. Looks like we need some (say, a Church established by Jesus)entity to decide which interpretation is right<>

Filthy Rags?

"But we are all like an unclean thing, and all of our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6). Isaiah the prophet summed up the wretched state into which the covenant people of God had sunk. Though they had the boon of receiving the Law from Mount Sinai, though they had come out of Egypt through the Red Sea, they had turned from their Lawgiver. The children of Zion were worshipping false gods (42:17). They were reveling in the dregs of idolatry. So much so, the prophet calls Jerusalem a harlot (1:21) and likens it to Sodom (3:9).

And yet, the people had an illusion of righteousness. Some of them professed to be "holier than thou," even while burning incense on strange altars (65:3-5). But God did not esteem their righteousness to be anything but pollution. He even hated the Sabbaths and feasts that He had Himself ordained (1:13,14). The house of Jacob's apostasy had rendered its best acts of religion unclean. Like the wind, sins were sweeping people away (64:6b).

How appropriate that the prophet would break into such hyperbole as to call this supposed goodness "filthy rags." What better way to call the nation to repentance? In the context of proud Judah's barrenness, the rebuke comes with the force of a thunderbolt.

This is most certainly the way the text should be read. We have all heard that "a text without a context is a pretext." This applies here. The "filthy rags" must be understood historically and with application to the audience: apostate Jerusalem.

This, however, is not the way many Evangelical Protestants applies the famous passage. In fact, in all of the times I have ever heard it quoted - in sermons, study guides, books, Sunday School lessons - I have never once heard anyone interpret the verse in context. References to Isaiah 64:6 are invariably made to mankind in general. The verse becomes a proof-text for the total depravity of man - even of the saints. Many will say that the deeds of even the most profound disciples are nothing but "filthy rags" in the sight of God. And so, the text is made universal and theological, rather than specific and historical.

The Isaiah text has long functioned as support for the "orthodox" creeds and confessions. Calvinism uses it to establish the idea that everything the natural man does is wicked - even good deeds. This helps to set up the dogma of "total inability," the engine which drives the entire Calvinist soteriology.

The Evangelical uses it to show that good works, obedience, virtue are all useless. This sets the stage for the doctrine of "accepting Christ" through a once-for-all act of faith.

But the question needs to be asked: By what hermeneutical principle do we so use a text? What gives us the right to uproot the verse from its surrounding historical context and use it as a proof for theology? Furthermore, we should ask if a theology constructed with such methods is a sound one.

Evangelicals may argue that their application of the verse is correct because Isaiah includes himself among those whose righteous acts are unclean ("...all of our righteous acts"). But this should be understood in the light of Israel's corporate guilt. Isaiah is numbering himself among the covenant people. Those people had fallen into gross sin (though certainly not every person without exception). Therefore, he says, "our righteous acts," the acts of the nation as a whole. This is consistent with the rest of the Old Testament. For example, we find that Daniel, though godly, confessed the sins of Israel as if he were himself the transgressor (Dan. 9:3-11).

Some reading this may wonder what the fuss is all about. Isn't it nit-picky to cavil at the way one verse of Scripture is being applied? Not in this case. I say so because the misapplication of Isaiah 64:6 has a tendency to disparage, or at least downgrade, good works. I submit that it is impossible to think of righteous acts as something filthy and, on the other hand, as something essential. How could filth be important or even desirable? How will Christ judge the saints "according to their works" (Matt. 16:27) if He already esteems all works repugnant? This introduces confusion into the Christian faith.

The idea makes James the most unintelligible book of the ancient world. The author would, in effect, be writing that "faith without filthy rags is dead" and "a man is justified by filthy rags and not by faith only" and "I will show you my faith through my filthy rags" and "by filthy rags, faith is made complete."

Christians would be enjoined to "stir up love and filthy rags." And young men, according to Paul, would all be obliged to show forth "a pattern of filthy rags." The absurdity goes on and on throughout the pages of Scripture if Isaiah 64:6 is applied to all people everywhere.

The obvious teaching of the Bible is that acts of virtue and goodness are pleasing to God. He does not view them as filthy, unless they are done with false intentions (cp. Matt. 6:2). In fact, God was pleased with Cornelius' alms, even before that man was converted to Christ (Acts 10:4). This alone should negate the popular application of Isaiah 64:6.

Amazingly, the preceding verse in the book of Isaiah teaches the exact opposite of the common interpretation of "filthy rags." Listen to the prophet: "You [the Lord] meet him who rejoices and does righteousness" (Isa. 64:5). Genuine works of righteousness, says Isaiah, are valuable; God meets us when we walk in them. Are we told the opposite thing one verse later? That hardly seems reasonable.

Jesus taught that God will reward even small works, such as giving a child a cup of water (Matt. 10:42). Our Lord commands us to let our good deeds "shine before men," that they might glorify the Father (Matt. 5:16). Paul writes that we are "created in Christ Jesus unto good works" (Eph. 2:10).

The apostle erases all doubt as to how God views works of righteousness. Paul urges the saints to "walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work" (Col. 1:10). Notice that pleasing God is connected to righteous works. They are clearly not filthy rags in the sight of God; they are a delight to Him.

Yes, our works are imperfect. But the Scripture affirms repeatedly that our Father smiles upon our acts of goodness. No one will be saved without them. Jesus states in John 5:29 that the resurrection unto life is for those who have "done good." Paul writes that God redeemed us to make us "His own special people, zealous for good works" (Tit. 2:14). And so, the entire scheme of redemption has as a focus good works - and a glorious resurrection to those who have walked in them for Christ's sake.

No, we do not put God in our debt by doing good deeds. We cannot merit salvation by balancing our works with our sins. Salvation and forgiveness lie in our covenant status with God through Christ. But the imitation of our Lord - which includes works (Acts 10:38) - is an obligation of the covenant. It is also a high privilege and a joy.

Clearly, God does not view our righteous acts as filthy rags, but as costly apparel purchased with the blood of Christ.

Scripture quotes are from the New King James Version.
Presented by:
True Grace Ministries

fantasy = mindlessness...

Especially the pop culture comic book fantasy of things like Halloween, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, ad nauseum...

Living your life generated through someone else's fantasy world is intellectual and not mindless?

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says:
"Satan [Heb., = adversary], in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,...

Paganism
Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism.

Compare these two examples you give and you get:
Paganism = Satanism

Satan is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology.

I am more concerned that you state my views accurately than I am about your response to them.

Devil worshipping Satanism is a negation of Christianity.
It is an acknowledgement of the belief in the Christian God and the deliberate defilement of(adversary).
The word Pagan at it's origins means ignorant (of Christianity). I do not see how you can link the
ancient Celtic celebrations of the seasons with Satanism.

Devil worshipping Satanism is a negation of Christianity. It is an acknowledgement of the belief in the Christian God and the deliberate defilement of(adversary).

False. Many pre-Christian societies had Satanic worship...

Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)

The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.

The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass – an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts.

There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? The Jewish synod of rabbinical authority will deny that Satan even exists. This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word...

-

The word Pagan at it's origins means ignorant (of Christianity).

False. The etymology (origin) of a word is not the same as it's definition or it's modern usage... Pagan is primarily defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as any person not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.

Thomas Hobbes, having been fluent in both Greek and Latin by age 9, has this to support my assertions in Leviathan:

Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.
Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church. (bold added)

All religions, including pre-Christian religions, have their devils and those who worship them. Remember Satan is pre-Christian...

This is getting silly. You want to take the ancient meaning of the word Satan, but only use the modern meaning of pagan.

Of course Satan has been present on earth from the beginning in many names.

If we take the HUGE leap that you have, as in your words here:

Paganism Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism.

Compare these two examples you give and you get: Paganism = Satanism

Then you, admitting to being neither a Christian, Jew or Moslem are in fact saying you are a Satanist!.

See, I knew I had you pegged from the beginning.

You want to take the ancient meaning of the word Satan, but only use the modern meaning of pagan.

Hebrew is an ancient language. English is a modern, evolving language.

-

Then you, admitting to being neither a Christian, Jew or Moslem are in fact saying you are a Satanist!.

No. You are saying it...

For an atheist such as myself, Satan is an esoteric hobgoblin, a phantasm of many things combined that is worshipped on Halloween by pagans and Judeo-Christians alike.

Let's return to Thomas Hobbes, the expert in language...

Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.
Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.