Thread: Do Bright and Light parties fulfil a need? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028793
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Locally Churches Together have run a Bright and Light Party on Halloween for primary age children to give them an alternative to trick and treating.
This is a version
Here the party runs from 4:30pm or 5pm to 6pm/6:15pm depending on whether it's a school night or not. And the requirement is that children dress in bright colours and take part in bright and light activities. Halloween costumes are discouraged. It's all free and frothy.
When I have helped in the past I have met several of the children who attended earlier changed into Halloween costumes and out trick or treating as I headed home after clearing away. Which seems somewhat to defeat the object of the exercise.
I really have two or three questions:
- What is the point of these parties? If they are intended to provide an alternative to trick or treating, why are they aimed at the young children who almost certainly trick or treat in groups with an adult, or in a small residential area where everyone knows everyone else? If the idea is to avoid the big problems with trick or treating why aren't the parties later and aimed at teenagers?
- What is the theology behind churches providing an alternative of bright and light to the day of the dead type / All Souls celebrations? Is this reflecting a lack of theology about death and dying?
- If we want to provide an alternative to the secular Halloween celebrations, should we be doing something for young people that allows them to discuss and face death and dying, rather than ignore it entirely and brush it under the carpet?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The main purpose of "light parties" is to prove that Christians don't party well.
I do understand the intent behind them, but I think, as you suggest, that it is a mistaken theology that drives this. We should use the season to talk about the reality of the spiritual, of evil, of the dark. Instead, there is a tendency to say "Halloween is bad - be bright and lovely instead".
I do remember one Halloween a group I was in wanted to talk about the importance of rejecting the evil and embracing the good and so decided to burn things that we needed to reject. Unfortunately, what it meant was that we were in a graveyard on Halloween, making a fire and burning stuff. That was even more creepy.
The truth as I see it is that there is dark in the world, and we need to acknowledge that, talk about it, and drain it of power - not ignore it and pretend that it is something horrible that we would never touch.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
The website says that they are "not keen on Halloween's ugliness."
This is kinda like saying that we're not really keen on the sacharine sweetness of Valentine's Day, so instead of handing out sentimental cards with hearts and cherubs, we're gonna hand out pictures of of bloody skulls with axes embedded in them.
Obviously, you're entitled to do that, and the rest of us are to think you're some sort of [unpurgatorial word for a socially maladjusted individual].
[ 01. November 2014, 14:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Somewhat cross-posted with the beagle.
I should admit to a bit of a bias, in that I was raised by a mother who, God bless her heart, was decidedly on the treacly side of things, and once made me go as a harlequin for Halloween. Never quite got over that little adventure in incongruity.
[ 01. November 2014, 14:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Just to play, umm, Devil's Advocate for a sec...
quote:
The truth as I see it is that there is dark in the world, and we need to acknowledge that, talk about it, and drain it of power - not ignore it and pretend that it is something horrible that we would never touch.
Do you think that Halloween can be that easily "housebroken" to fit a Christian worldview? It seems to me that the whole idea of it is a celebration, albeit within a confined setting, of deviance and darkness.
That's why I think the goodie-goodies who complain "We shouldn't be teaching kids that it's okay to go around making threats in order to get candy" are kinda missing the point. It's precisely that aspect of human nature which, if only on a symbolic level, is being allowed to roam free.
For the record, we always yelled "Halloween Apples", not "Trick Or Treat" where I lived, so I'm not just engaging in wistful nostalgia for my lost boyhood here.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
My mum tells me that when she was growing up, they had "Mischief Night" - a similar idea, but for her, it was a time of letting the younger ones let off steam, probably after a busy few weeks working on the harvest. As they would be liable to be stuck inside the house in the evenings for the next few months, it made sense.
That is about "celebrating the deviant", but within confines, and that idea can fit within Christianity - we are broken, fallen beings, we have trouble and mischief within us. We can celebrate that, because that is who we are. then we can continue to be reformed and changed into Gods likeness.
Celebrate that we are still not perfect, because if we were perfect, we would be dead.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can understand the motivation but find the 'Christian alternatives' to be cheesy and embarrassing for the most part.
Their only value seems to be to convince the organisers that they are doing something worthwhile and to give them a counter-cultural buzz once a year.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
When I was a kid, Halloween was primarily a harvest fest. Candy corn, bobbing for apples, carving pumpkins.
Costumes were almost all "other cultures" or animal (I remember dressing like a "gypsy" or "turkish dancer," neighborhood boys were often "pirate" or lion or cowboy from a TV show). Toss in an occasional (but rare) bedsheet ghost.
In recent years many costumes have been graphically gruesome. Some Halloween stores give me the creeps just walking in the door. If that's what's going on in your area, I well understand trying to create an alternative.
But parties don't satisfy the Halloween itch, they didn't in my day either. My school threw a Halloween party with costume contest and games, but when my friends and I got home we wanted to go trick or treating.
Last night I went to the town Halloween fest fairly late -- more people were crowding the nearby residential streets trick or treating than were at the downtown fest. (A friend on one of the near-downtown residential streets said she went through $200 of candy. That was several years ago; crowds last night were at least double then, maybe more.)
Trick or treat is what kids want to do on Halloween; no matter what alternatives you offer, they'll enjoy the party but they still want to go trick or treating before or after the party.
(Kids includes teenagers, who usually trick or treat with no hint of costume.)
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
The website says that they are "not keen on Halloween's ugliness."
This is kinda like saying that we're not really keen on the sacharine sweetness of Valentine's Day, so instead of handing out sentimental cards with hearts and cherubs, we're gonna hand out pictures of of bloody skulls with axes embedded in them.
Obviously, you're entitled to do that, and the rest of us are to think you're some sort of [unpurgatorial word for a socially maladjusted individual].
I daresay such pictures would actually be rather appropriate, in commemoration of the martyrdom of St. Valentine!
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Just to play, umm, Devil's Advocate for a sec...
quote:
The truth as I see it is that there is dark in the world, and we need to acknowledge that, talk about it, and drain it of power - not ignore it and pretend that it is something horrible that we would never touch.
Do you think that Halloween can be that easily "housebroken" to fit a Christian worldview? It seems to me that the whole idea of it is a celebration, albeit within a confined setting, of deviance and darkness.
That's why I think the goodie-goodies who complain "We shouldn't be teaching kids that it's okay to go around making threats in order to get candy" are kinda missing the point. It's precisely that aspect of human nature which, if only on a symbolic level, is being allowed to roam free.
My understanding of Halloween was always that we wear costumes to celebrate our triumph over the evil spirits by aping them, or perhaps to hide from them, but certainly not to sincerely imitate them!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, Belle Ringer. I can remember when Hallowe'en was more about apple-bobbing and such than ghouls and ghosts and so on ... and yes, I agree that some of the grisliness has gone beyond ...
So I can understand the motivation to find alternatives.
Sadly, most of the alternatives are just naff.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
When I was a teenager we didn't have any of the modern US-imported rubbish. Neither did we have the US-evangelical hysteria against it!
We had no pumpkins - we hollowed out a swede. Have you ever tried that???
And then we went to The Salvation Army youth club for a Tramps Supper.
Now, can you tell me what would be the most offensive ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
dressing up as a ghost or dressing up as a homeless person?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Bran Stark wrote:
quote:
My understanding of Halloween was always that we wear costumes to celebrate our triumph over the evil spirits by aping them, or perhaps to hide from them, but certainly not to sincerely imitate them!
That may be, though my guess is that when a kid dresses up as Dracula, or his parents put a flaming skull in the window, the general thought in their heads usually isn't "Parodying Evil testifies to its ultimate defeat through the omnipotence of God."
Rather, it's more just "Blood-sucking vampires and flaming skulls. Coo-oool!"
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The main purpose of "light parties" is to prove that Christians don't party well.
And from what I can gather - mission accomplished.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
When I was a teenager we didn't have any of the modern US-imported rubbish. Neither did we have the US-evangelical hysteria against it!
We had no pumpkins - we hollowed out a swede. Have you ever tried that???
And then we went to The Salvation Army youth club for a Tramps Supper.
Now, can you tell me what would be the most offensive dressing up as a ghost or dressing up as a homeless person?
That dates you, Mudfrog. Like me you are a relic of a more enlightened age! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Instead of finding alternatives why not celebrate Halowe'en's Christian origins.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
balaam, I think that's the intention, but the darkness bit gets swept away completely. The parties I have helped at have had lots of activities based on colour and light - no dark at all. And I think that we need to reflect the dark too, and these Bright and Light parties are misguided.
Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on
:
I feel frustrated by light parties. My kids know that the world is scary sometimes. They need to remember that God is with them in the dark, not to pretend it doesn't exist.
We did our own little halloween thing this year. It began a couple of years ago when the preschool had a halloween party so ignoring it wasn't an option. We turned off lights and talked about scary things, then lit a candle and saw how much difference it makes when there is a little light, and talked about Jesus being the light of the world. Easy when they are 4, can't see it working for much longer though!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I agree with Mudfrog. I also think that the US-style evangelical reaction against Hallowe'en is counter-productive and tends to draw more attention to it than it deserves.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
When I was a teenager we didn't have any of the modern US-imported rubbish.
Nothing like a little pond war fodder to adorn a thread with bright and light.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The main purpose of "light parties" is to prove that Christians don't party well.
And from what I can gather - mission accomplished.
Oh my, yes. I took my kids to one this year, not because I think they're an awesome idea, but because I'm not wild about walking around the neighbourhood with them, sanctioning the taking of candy from strangers, either. I thought my kids would be happy enough as long as they got to dress up and eat some lollies, so we went along to the 'light party' put on by one of the big local churches. The following are my impressions: a lot of people had put a lot of effort into the event, so kudos to them for that. However, rather than just letting the kids have a party time without the 'evil' undertones, it was used as an evangelism opportunity, which irritated me - it's called a 'party' on the flyers, but you have to sit down and listen to a 'show' which is three guys dramatically reading some passage from Acts, before you're allowed to do any activities. Then there's the activities. The point of these was to earn some party currency (ie little coins- which had crosses embossed on them...), and you could use these coins to 'pay' for various types of treat foods. One of which was a 'party bag' which contained one wrapped chocolate, one lollipop, one small pack of unflavoured rice crackers, and a little box of raisins. When I saw that, I thought, 'Jeez, guys, don't have too much fun, you might have a sensation overload or something.' And what's with the earning your treats? This is how to show an alternative to the way the world does things? By going for parsimony and and a 'work for your candy' model, on the one night of the year when everyone else* does something that looks a bit like grace?
Anyway, glad it's over. All that said, my perspective is that of an adult. My kids professed to enjoy it and went to bed happy, and it was only two hours of my life...
*ie: the people handing out the candy, not the trick-or-treaters...
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
My church has a light party but I really don't get it, why invent a Christian alternative rather than just look to Christian tradition? And it does seem a cheesy sanitised version that avoids the issues.
My youngest went to a Halloween party dressed as a Zombie Doctor Who instead...
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Locally Churches Together have run a Bright and Light Party on Halloween for primary age children to give them an alternative to trick and treating.
Better than telling they aren't allowed to do anything fun, I suppose.
quote:
What is the theology behind churches providing an alternative of bright and light to the day of the dead type / All Souls celebrations? Is this reflecting a lack of theology about death and dying?
I'd say, "Yes, most likely."
quote:
If we want to provide an alternative to the secular Halloween celebrations, should we be doing something for young people that allows them to discuss and face death and dying, rather than ignore it entirely and brush it under the carpet?
Yes. Though I'd suggest an addition, not an alternative.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Now, can you tell me what would be the most offensive dressing up as a ghost or dressing up as a homeless person?
You could combine them.
Oh, and Happy All Hallows' (Saints') Day to all! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Now, can you tell me what would be the most offensive dressing up as a ghost or dressing up as a homeless person?
You could combine them.
Oh, and Happy All Hallows' (Saints') Day to all!
A dead homeless person! Excellent.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
It does seem a little strange to me to see Churches protesting against the secularisation (and pagan-isation) of a day which is widely acknowledged to have had Pagan roots. So really, what they're doing now is re-branding their original take over.
I'm not sure what I make of it to be honest. I think I'm in agreement with those here that have suggested there is a serious need to acknowledge darkness and wrong in the world and not to bury it under fairy lights and sugar but how you do that effectively in a society that no longer knows how to take Christianity seriously is difficult.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ...
A fair point on the Pond War thing, Mousethief but in this instance I think Mudfrog also has a fair point.
I don't think Mudfrog would turn his nose up at all US imports, any more than I would - but on this one I'd agree that the Americanisation of Hallowe'en is a pretty reprehensible development.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
When I was a teenager we didn't have any of the modern US-imported rubbish.
Nothing like a little pond war fodder to adorn a thread with bright and light.
We'll see where your related post in the Styx gets you with the relevant powers that be. In the meantime, accusing someone of fuelling a pond war is, as far as I can see, the equivalent to spoiling for one.
Whatever the Styx ruling, within the Purgatory hosts' remit, all participants are reminded that pond war fuelling, accusations of pond war fuelling, junior hosting, and disregard for the Ten Commandments and hostly interventions are not to be indulged in here.
/hosting
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A dead homeless person! Excellent.
And the subject of one of the most awesome and touching single-issue comics I've read: Neil Gaiman's "Hold Me." A very different John Constantine story...
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I think I'm in agreement with those here that have suggested there is a serious need to acknowledge darkness and wrong in the world and not to bury it under fairy lights and sugar
I agree about that, but that's not what Halloween is supposed to be about at its heart: It's about death, especially (but not limited to) dead loved ones, which is not the same thing. Fairy lights, and sugar, and decorated candy skulls, and such.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
A better link for "Hold Me."
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We had no pumpkins - we hollowed out a swede. Have you ever tried that???
Ah yes - the smell of burning swede. That takes me back...
ETA: Not so many "gruesome" costumes around here. Lots of superheroes, about a gazillion Elsas from Frozen, and a bunch of teen girls in "as skimpy as Mom and Dad will let me get away with" and bobbly antennae, devil horns or similar. About 1% home-made creative costumes.
[ 01. November 2014, 19:41: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whatever the Styx ruling, within the Purgatory hosts' remit, all participants are reminded that pond war fuelling, accusations of pond war fuelling, junior hosting, and disregard for the Ten Commandments and hostly interventions are not to be indulged in here.
/hosting
Noted.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
The latest innovation here in So. Cal. is trunk-or-treat-- when the church members bring their cars to the parking lot, open up decorated trunks filled with candy, so the neighborhood kiddos can trick-or-treat from trunk to trunk. Can make a nice option for neighborhoods where trick-or-treating is unsafe (or, in my neighborhood, where newly arrived immigrants find the practice bewildering and are caught unprepared). As with the other options mentioned here, it's often just a tag-on to the rest of the trick-or-treating, but has the advantage of losing some of the joykiller aspect of some church festivals.
This discussion got me thinking about probably my favorite Halloween episode of any TV show-- Nothing Sacred-- an American show, cancelled too soon when it's frank and honest portrayals of religious life caused too much controversy among the exact same sort who'd run a "light and bright" party. The episode had many interweaving themes with their dealing with the reality of evil-- domestic abuse, poverty, sickness, etc. The culmination was a trunk-or-treat in their inner-city parish parking lot for the neighborhood children, followed by this hauntingly beautiful closing sequence where they gathered around a bonfire and tossed in sticks representing all the ways fear had held them back in the last year. It closed with the Breastplate of St. Patrick.
Someday I'm gonna do that.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
I feel frustrated by light parties. My kids know that the world is scary sometimes. They need to remember that God is with them in the dark, not to pretend it doesn't exist.
Precisely. It seems that churches who like them often have problems with seeing God in the world outside their church bubbles.
God is there in the dark. God is there when life is crap, not just when everything is lovely. Or he is no God at all.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think Mudfrog would turn his nose up at all US imports, any more than I would - but on this one I'd agree that the Americanisation of Hallowe'en is a pretty reprehensible development.
The thing is, it's not Americanization. It's borrowing some aspects of American Halloween without their original context.
Moo
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
We've just had our first Halloween in Canada. Scores of kids in fancy dress saying "Happy Halloween!" and then taking (politely) some sweets, whilst parents watched from the street to make sure all was well. It was great fun.
I especially loved some of the smaller kids dressed up as incredibly cute monsters. But we also had batman, a couple of princesses, a scarecrow and the complete cast of Scream.
I'll admit that I am old enough to remember the older Halloween traditions in the UK and to feel a little saddened that they have been pretty much overwhelmed by "trick or treat". But I've never seen the point in these "Bright and Light" parties. All they do is mark out Christians as boring and stuffy.
What I observed last night was an event where one of the primary purposes seems to be the nourishing of community life. Loads of people out on the streets and on the doorsteps saying "hi" to one another. Far better for Christians to be involved with that, than stuck away in a church hall somewhere pretending to have "better fun".
Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on
:
Oscar, I'd agree if that was what I saw on the streets at Halloween. Mostly the streets are empty(ish) and lots of people hide in their homes (and I do mean hide - lights off and don't answer the door). That isn't community building. Halloween in the UK is just weird.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think Mudfrog would turn his nose up at all US imports, any more than I would - but on this one I'd agree that the Americanisation of Hallowe'en is a pretty reprehensible development.
The thing is, it's not Americanization. It's borrowing some aspects of American Halloween without their original context.
Moo
I think that's fair comment. It could be added that the "light and shite" parties (as Malcolm Tucker would doubtless call them) involve borrowing the neurotic aspects of US evangelicalism without its more positive aspects.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
When I was a kid my church had a regular Halloween party for the little kids. Costumes, Halloween games (bobbing for apples, apple on a string, those are the two I remember but there were more) and prizes for the best costume. The adult helpers came in costume too. When i was older the youth group threw a Halloween party for ourselves as well, again costumes, treats, and games. It was all a lovely fun time and all church sanctioned. Some of my happiest childhood Halloween-related memories.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It depends where you are in the UK.
Obviously I didn't get to experience Halloween in Scotland this year, and last year was awkward. But, we had small groups of local children knock on doors (those with porch lights on and other decorations to be welcoming) and 'guising *. Which seems much more fun than just getting given sweets for doing nothing more than saying "trick or treat". I spent an hour walking around with the group of parents who were making sure everyone was OK, that they all watched for traffic when crossing the road, no one went to any of the houses with porch lights off, carrying the carrier bags full of sweets since little hands can only carry so much. Most of the time we don't let ourselves just chat with neighbours, much less walk up to their doors. Fun for kids, and community building for parents.
I can see it working much better in areas where there isn't much traffic, cul-de-sacs or other quite roads. I can certainly see it as a logistic nightmare in denser urban settings with heavy traffic, lots of flats with security entrances etc.
We were discussing Halloween traditions on Friday at work. It's a festival that has no roots here at all (the traditional commemoration for the dead is in the summer). We all had a common experience of when it started to become a big festival with trick-or-treat and costumes - it was following the release of the movie "E.T.".
* 'guising is the more traditional Scottish activity that has similarities to 'trick or treat', costumes and visiting houses getting sweets. The difference is that the door step visit involves singing songs, telling jokes, a bit of dancing or some other form of entertainment for the householder.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
Oscar, I'd agree if that was what I saw on the streets at Halloween. Mostly the streets are empty(ish) and lots of people hide in their homes (and I do mean hide - lights off and don't answer the door). That isn't community building. Halloween in the UK is just weird.
Agreed. It's an attempt to imitate Halloween as seen on TV and in film. But all that people have imitated is the "trick or treat" begging for sweets. Almost none of the American hospitality and friendliness has been incorporated. I've experienced more than enough awkward Halloweens in the UK, which is why I found this one in Canada so different.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Is it a newer thing for evangelicals to be anti-Halloween? My dad grew up in Ethiopia as an Australian missionary kid and attended a boarding school where most of the other kids where the children on missionaries from the US and Canada. The school celebrated Halloween each year with a costume parade. I think the focus was on funny, original costumes rather than scary ones.
My dad had no idea what Halloween was his first school year so the other kids told him just to wear something funny. So he wore his clothes backwards and his underpants on his head! I don't think he ever lived it down.
The next year his parents made sure he and his brother had proper costumes. This despite the fact that they were strict Methodists who at the time were taught even going to the cinema was evil. (They've become far less legalistic over the years).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I went to a fairly conservative Baptist church while growing up, and I don't remember there being any talk of Halloween being a bad thing when I was a kid.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Is it a newer thing for evangelicals to be anti-Halloween? My dad grew up in Ethiopia as an Australian missionary kid and attended a boarding school where most of the other kids where the children on missionaries from the US and Canada. The school celebrated Halloween each year with a costume parade. I think the focus was on funny, original costumes rather than scary ones. *snip*
In my eastern Ontario childhood, the local Baptists were not contra-hallowenial, but the Pentecostals definitely were. They were only ones against Hallowe'en when I was a child (aside from some Franco-Ontarian antic-clericals who were primarily against Hallowe'en as an English word and against the Christian feast of All Saints).
Anti-Hallowe'en sentiment seems to have increased in recent years. Friends of mine who evangelical-home school tell me that their (mainly US-origin) material has anti-Hallowe'en programming-- they were taken aback when I pointed out that as the vigil of All Saints, it had Xn origins. It is fair to note that the Xn links do feature in some home school materials, but there seems to be a great deal of historical ignorance here. The local RC school board (Ontario has a publicly-funded separate system) RE materials do relate to this, of course, and Mass assembly material for All Saints has a fair bit-- there is referencing to Haitian and Central American folk practices for the feast, as well as to the nigh-disappeared French Canadian and Irish customs of remembering families' recent dead.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I went to a fairly conservative Baptist church while growing up, and I don't remember there being any talk of Halloween being a bad thing when I was a kid.
One of my little school mates had a mom who was a full on holy roller-- house stuffed with Chick tracts, the works. She tried to campaign for the abolition of Halloween in our neighborhood, but it didn't take.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The roots of the current fundy hatred of Halloween are about as old as the roots of the "War on Christmas" nonsense, and just about as deep.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Mudfrog:
We had no pumpkins - we hollowed out a swede. Have you ever tried that???
No, but my in laws are all Norwegians and there have been Christmases where I was tempted.
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Mudfrog:
We had no pumpkins - we hollowed out a swede. Have you ever tried that???
No, but my in laws are all Norwegians and there have been Christmases where I was tempted.
If your in-laws are Norwegian they probably relish the idea of hollowing out a Swede or two.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
The sad thing about Halloween is that most participants are completely ignorant of the festival and celebration of All Saints. I don't mind kids having a bit of fun dressing up and having a party as long as they don't go knocking on strangers' doors begging (a very dangerous activity). However, kids should also be exposed to the beautiful side of life and death with joyful memories of those we have loved/admired who have died and gone to eternal rest.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
We celebrated Halloween/ All Saints/ All Souls with a rousing rendition of For All The Saints Who From Their Labour Rest to Williams's version, arguably the best hymn tune produced by the twentieth century.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I went digging to find out about the origins of the Bright and Light parties and found this document from 2006: Better than Halloween (pdf) suggestions for alternatives to Halloween with Biblical justification - very similar to that of the Scripture Union materials
According to the Wikipedia article Halloween customs in (southern) England were disapproved of by the Puritans and additionally mostly transferred to the Guy Fawkes celebrations of 5 November, which caused them to mainly die out. (That was in the 1600s, btw, so 400 years ago - we managed our own suppression of customs all by ourselves.)
Bright and Light parties as a way to counteract Halloween just seem misguided and badly thought through.
If the intention is to do something about trick and treating - and in the UK it's a real problem - a £1.4 billion bill in 2012 for the damage and vandalism caused, mostly by thrown eggs - surely these parties should be aimed at teenagers?
If they want to reclaim the Christian festival why are they not looking at the memories of the dead? Maybe a cemetery or graveyard clean up with flowers on neglected graves and a bonfire with spooky stories? And add in cliffdweller's stick to symbolise things that have gone have gone better?
If they want to provide a generous party with sweets to protect children from walking the streets and knocking on the doors of strangers, then why not a street party with forfeit games and a costume party with the prizes weighted towards homemade costumes, not the commercial ones? And agree doors who are prepared to engage in advance - with the traditional jack o'lantern outside, maybe? And get the participants to open the doors wearing costumes.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I mentioned Hallowe'en in church last week to the children as a "bit of fun". An elderly gentleman came up to me afterwards and said, "I can't see how you can bring yourself to say that - it's Satanic".
And, certainly, it has always been that view which I have heard expressed in Evangelical circles as the reason to have Light Parties and to oppose Hallowe'en, not the "Death is scary, we shouldn't mention it to the children" one.
By the way, have other people noticed how Hallowe'en is losing its apostrophe these days, too, further dissociating it from "All Hallows" = "All Saints"?
[ 02. November 2014, 07:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on
:
I remember when I was little the local brownie pack always held a Halloween party. I was very excited when I got to go the first year I was a brownie. I still remember being amazed that we had green orange squash The following year it was decided it wasn't appropriate for a church brownie group to do.
The year before I was old enough to go to the party a few of us in our road who were around the same age did get dressed up and went trick or treating to each other's houses. This was before ET came out so it was done here prior to that.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The sad thing about Halloween is that most participants are completely ignorant of the festival and celebration of All Saints. I don't mind kids having a bit of fun dressing up and having a party as long as they don't go knocking on strangers' doors begging (a very dangerous activity). However, kids should also be exposed to the beautiful side of life and death with joyful memories of those we have loved/admired who have died and gone to eternal rest.
Thankfully we have had no children knocking at the door this year. There were quite a few last year, some far to young to be out and about.
I said 'Sorry, no treats here, and what if I were a murdering woman and dragged you into my house? This is not safe, go home!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The sad thing about Halloween is that most participants are completely ignorant of the festival and celebration of All Saints. I don't mind kids having a bit of fun dressing up and having a party as long as they don't go knocking on strangers' doors begging (a very dangerous activity). However, kids should also be exposed to the beautiful side of life and death with joyful memories of those we have loved/admired who have died and gone to eternal rest.
Thankfully we have had no children knocking at the door this year. There were quite a few last year, some far to young to be out and about.
I said 'Sorry, no treats here, and what if I were a murdering woman and dragged you into my house? This is not safe, go home!
Probably some of those who called last year told mum and dad "the lady in number xxx didn't have any sweets and told us she was going to murder us". Message received, this year mum & dad said "don't go to number xxx, she doesn't want to do treat and treat". Most children, especially the younger ones, are supervised by an adult (who may be a bit down the road where they can see the kids but not obviously hovering - in my case usually chatting to other parents likewise engaged in discrete child watching) or much older children. The children don't want to waste time calling on someone who isn't going to give them anything, so will only visit homes that look promising - porch lights on, decorations displayed etc.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I find it very sad that the whole concept of Halloween (of the mockery of the devil and his hoards on the eve vigil of a major feast) is disappearing. Stranger still, that it is Christians who have become so anti it and allowed it to be hijacked by every loon in town.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I find it very sad that the whole concept of Halloween (of the mockery of the devil and his hoards on the eve vigil of a major feast) is disappearing. Stranger still, that it is Christians who have become so anti it and allowed it to be hijacked by every loon in town.
I think there are several factors at play, and of course they'll vary in different places.
The first issue is that for many Christians, especially evangelicals, All Saints isn't a major feast. There has been a move from All Hallows Eve to Halloween (even dropping the apostrophe), it's become a festival isolated from the surrounding calender.
A second issue is that as Christendom has declined in western Europe there have been movements to revive pre-Christian traditions. In the Celtic world that has included Samhain, the festival to mark the autumn equinox from which most of our Halloween traditions largely derive (albeit changed significantly from their roots).
Third, the issues above have combined to create a festival that has not only been cut from the Christian calender but also now associated with pagan rituals. I think the "it's satanic" attitude in some Evangelicals comes largely from a misconception that something that's pagan is satanic - which is, of course, nonsense and if actually believed would mean they'd be as concerned about Christmas trees or Easter eggs (there are Christians who'd object to these too, but much fewer in number than those who object to Halloween).
And, that's before we get to the problems of cultural practices being imported into other countries where the rest of the culture those practices belong in doesn't exist.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If the intention is to do something about trick and treating - and in the UK it's a real problem - a £1.4 billion bill in 2012 for the damage and vandalism caused, mostly by thrown eggs - surely these parties should be aimed at teenagers?
Trick or treating and Halloween vandalism are not done by the same groups. The trick or treaters are almost all pre-adolescent; the vandals are almost all adolescent.
Moo
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
In my (UK) experience it is a continuum, because of the nature of Hallowe'en over here.
I knew primary school children who used Hallowe'en trick and treating as an excuse to put horrible things through the doors of neighbours who had told them off during the year. And a number of other primary school children who were involved in vandalism.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think the "it's satanic" attitude in some Evangelicals comes largely from a misconception that something that's pagan is satanic - which is, of course, nonsense and if actually believed would mean they'd be as concerned about Christmas trees or Easter eggs (there are Christians who'd object to these too, but much fewer in number than those who object to Halloween).
True.
My brother is a pagan, a magus, and he doesn't believe in Satan.
Strangely he does believe in Lucifer... I don't think I'll try and address that one!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If the intention is to do something about trick and treating - and in the UK it's a real problem - a £1.4 billion bill in 2012 for the damage and vandalism caused, mostly by thrown eggs - surely these parties should be aimed at teenagers?
Trick or treating and Halloween vandalism are not done by the same groups. The trick or treaters are almost all pre-adolescent; the vandals are almost all adolescent.
Moo
It should also be noted that that article covers all damage covering Halloween and Bonfire Night. It also includes damage from accidents with fireworks, and damages from parties at home (sooner or later someone will drop red wine on the cream carpet, or put a bottle of beer on top of the TV). So, although it says the most common form of vandalism is thrown eggs, the costs of cleaning up will be very small (occasional broken window aside). The actual cost of Halloween hooliganism will be much less than that £1.4 billion.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
As I understand it, Samhain is not the equinox, which is around 22/23 September, and associated with Michaelmas, a quarter day for the purposes of rent, along with Christmas, Lady Day and St John's Day (Midsummer).
Between these astronomical quarter days (equinoxes and solstices) lie the cross quarter days, All Saints, Candlemass, May Day and Lammas (Loafmass, originally the first fruits of the harvest). The cross quarter days mark out the seasons according to nature in these parts. November brings the loss of tree foliage and really miserable winter weather; Candlemass the first stirrings of plants, with snowdrops, and, a little later, the birds pairing up on the 14th; May Day, the beginning of summer and abundant growth; and Lammas, as above, the beginning of harvest. The cross quarter days have their Celtic names, and the inheritance of being used in Ireland and Scotland for rent collection.
Incidentally, the Celtic calendar began with this time of year, with the dark part coming first, in the same way as the Hebrew calendar marks days by taking night first. So now is the new year according to ancient custom.
[ 02. November 2014, 12:08: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
We had over 50 children call for trick or treating (we live on a council estate). Most of these were accompanied by adults and all were well behaved. Many children stopped and chatted on the doorstep as they know my children from school, mums also chatted. It was a very pleasant evening and I've not heard any reports of unpleasant deeds locally.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Alan:
quote:
In the Celtic world that has included Samhain, the festival to mark the autumn equinox from which most of our Halloween traditions largely derive (albeit changed significantly from their roots).
Sadly - again - most of that kind of stuff is a crock concocted by modern 'wiccans' and the like. Certainly in Ireland there may have been some who lit fires around the equinox, but this notion that a great pagan festival took place around Halloween is pretty much nonsense as far as I can tell. On the other hand, if the wiccans argued that Lammas was a great pagan festival then I might give them that; especially considering how festivities to mark it still take place here to this day (as they also do on Lughnasa, which has even more of a pagan air to it).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
By the way, have other people noticed how Hallowe'en is losing its apostrophe these days, too, further dissociating it from "All Hallows" = "All Saints"?
Halloween only occasionally had an apostrophe here in California when I was a child (I'm almost 52), and it's long gone now.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
It never has an apostrophe when I was a child, it is something that seems to have been introduced, but not introduced fully, only fairly recently.
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on
:
Always an apostrophe in my youth in rural Scotland, where my evangelical parents would clear out the garage, light it with turnip lanterns, and one gas lamp and host a party with Apple dooking and mashed potatoes with sixpences in them and treacle scones suspended from a string that banged you stickily in the face, before we all went off guising - unsupervised. Looking back I think my very sane parents knew that it was better to have a lot of fun on hallowe'en and good solid Christian teaching about good and evil throughout the year than try to hide from one or combine the two. I hope we have given my own kids as much fun: this year they decided that they were too old to go guising.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It never has an apostrophe when I was a child, it is something that seems to have been introduced, but not introduced fully, only fairly recently.
Don't think so - it was a contraction of All Hallows' Even in the 1770s.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Alan:
quote:
In the Celtic world that has included Samhain, the festival to mark the autumn equinox from which most of our Halloween traditions largely derive (albeit changed significantly from their roots).
Sadly - again - most of that kind of stuff is a crock concocted by modern 'wiccans' and the like. Certainly in Ireland there may have been some who lit fires around the equinox, but this notion that a great pagan festival took place around Halloween is pretty much nonsense as far as I can tell. On the other hand, if the wiccans argued that Lammas was a great pagan festival then I might give them that; especially considering how festivities to mark it still take place here to this day (as they also do on Lughnasa, which has even more of a pagan air to it).
I thought Lughnasa and Lammas were pretty much the same thing, both being at the beginning of August and all.
My source on the year beginning on the first of November was (I think) "Celtic Tradition" by Alwyn and Brinley Rees, (1960) Thames and Hudson, which drew on the Gaulish calendar disc found at Coligny, which predates the neo-pagans by a considerable period, and which they compared to the Indian calendar and connections with Diwali (as I recall).
I don't think neo-pagans can be blamed for everything people think about the cross quarter days. Though possibly for thinking they are the same as the solstices and equinoxes. Which the earlier people seem to have thought more important, since they built their monuments with alignments in those directions.
[ 02. November 2014, 15:43: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'd be willing to bet that dropping the apostrophe has everything to do with the normal evolution/simplification of words in the English language (iced cream, anyone?), and nowt at all to do with dissociating the holiday from All Saints.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I entirely agree - but the effect is to aid the dissociation.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It never has an apostrophe when I was a child, it is something that seems to have been introduced, but not introduced fully, only fairly recently.
Maybe it's a micro- regional thing, but I remember actually being surprised the first time I saw the word with an apostrophe.
But I agree with mousethief-- we simply started spelling the word the way we say it. Chumley, anyone?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I went digging to find out about the origins of the Bright and Light parties and found this document from 2006: Better than Halloween (pdf) suggestions for alternatives to Halloween with Biblical justification - very similar to that of the Scripture Union materials
I recall going to Light Parties when I was in primary school, which would be the first half of the 1990's. (FWIW I don't recall them being more cringeworthy than any other children's party.)
My guess is that they are a product of the Satanic Ritual Abuse paranoia at the end of the eighties.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I said 'Sorry, no treats here, and what if I were a murdering woman and dragged you into my house? This is not safe, go home!
Probably some of those who called last year told mum and dad "the lady in number xxx didn't have any sweets and told us she was going to murder us".
In the U.S., this would also be a great way of building a reputation among the neighborhood kids as The Mean Lady at House Number XXX.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
There wasn't much interest in Halloween and no fuss made about it when I was growing up in the fifties. I have to admit, though, that I don't like the modern stuff. With the concern these days about paedophiles,the whole idea of children going round in the dark and knocking on the doors of complete strangers to be given sweets is a bit creepy. And I really dislike this throwing eggs at people. That is just an excuse for yobbery.
I'd much rather go to this. It looks much more fun. It's quite a long way away, though. So I suspect I never shall.
Whether it's fireworks, Christmas carols, tar barrels (you need to get about 1½ minutes in to find out what they are singing about) or setting fire to replica Viking ships, people need something to cheer them up when it's cold and the nights are dark.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There wasn't much interest in Halloween and no fuss made about it when I was growing up in the fifties. I have to admit, though, that I don't like the modern stuff. With the concern these days about paedophiles,the whole idea of children going round in the dark and knocking on the doors of complete strangers to be given sweets is a bit creepy. And I really dislike this throwing eggs at people. That is just an excuse for yobbery.
This is a difference between the U.S. and the U.K. In the U.S. it's never felt creepy. All the kids trick-or-treating are accompanied by adults or the older ones are in pairs and groups. When I was a kid we pretty much only approached houses where it looked like people were handing out treats (lit jack-o-lanterns lit, porch light on, etc.) and avoided ones that looked like nobody was home.
Nobody ever threw eggs at people. The worst prank I'd heard of was throwing toilet paper at someone's house and I'd heard of that happening in my area maybe once.
I think that in it's travel back to the British Isles Halloween has lost some of the innocence it has in North America, as in taking the "trick" part literally. One reason is because these things often lose something when they travel from one place to another (for example, there aren't as many people with childhood memories or stories passed down in the family to make sure things are done right).
Another reason is that it's been losing some of the innocence in North America too. It used to be more of a spooky children's carnival. Think of the Halloween scene from "Meet Me in St. Louis". Nowadays there's more of an emphasis on horror and gore by way of Hollywood and carousing by young adults. I think that is kind of a problem so I kind of sympathize with people who start looking for alternatives even though I don't have a problem with Halloween itself.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Penny S:
quote:
I thought Lughnasa and Lammas were pretty much the same thing, both being at the beginning of August and all.
Sorry, you're right, but its a geographic thing and I wasn't very clear. The answer then is yes and no. They are the same time, but they are quite different in substance. Lammas tends to take place in the far north of Ireland in the form of a fair, the exchange and parading of livestock and lots of drink. Lughnasa tends to involve ritualised dance, the gathering up of corn for offerings and was even said to have involved the sacrifice of a bull and tends to be observed only in the Republic of Ireland. Today it involves patterns and turas', so it's become sort of Christianised to a very large extent, although in some places you might still see seanachaí reciting stuff and various sean-nós singers wearing curious corn and wheat masks during Lughnasa and reciting and singing material that centres on sex and courtship, but the practice is rapidly disappearing
quote:
I don't think neo-pagans can be blamed for everything people think about the cross quarter days.
No, I don't think so either; the Christians are to blame for ignorance of their own faith!
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Pancho wrote:
quote:
This is a difference between the U.S. and the U.K. In the U.S. it's never felt creepy. All the kids trick-or-treating are accompanied by adults or the older ones are in pairs and groups. When I was a kid we pretty much only approached houses where it looked like people were handing out treats (lit jack-o-lanterns lit, porch light on, etc.) and avoided ones that looked like nobody was home.
I concur with Pancho that Halloween, at least as I've seen it practiced in North America, would not likely be a high-risk night for child sexual abuae.
If anything, kids would be more at risk at a private party, held away from the public eye. But even that is only relative to what I think would be the pretty low risk of public trick-or-treating.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
.... Unfortunately, what it meant was that we were in a graveyard on Halloween, making a fire and burning stuff.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Brilliant!
I agree with the points you're making about this SC. Halloween is fun for kids in a similar way to Bonfire Night, which also has macabre origins. I went to a church primary school and we did Halloween-themed artwork. The 'Mischief Night' you mentioned earlier was also a firm tradition. It's the night before Bonfire Night when the conspirators were organising their 'mischief' of blowing up parliament. For kids it involved a lot of knock-on-door-and-run-away and kicking dustbin lids about as I recall.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
When I was a kid, trick or treating was for little kids. By the time you were 12 or so, you were discouraged from doing it except as chaperone for a younger kid.
Now high school kids go house to house. Frankly, I'm on edge when half a dozen strong adult-sized men bang on my door after dark, as late as 9 or 10 PM, yelling "open up, we know you are in there." Back when I still opened up, not one of the teens was wearing any hint of costume.
Actually, last time I stayed home for trick or treat, only half the kids wore any costume, and I'm counting a bit of face paint OR a silly hat OR a simple mask as costume.
Between the decrease in costumes to enjoy and the roving gangs of young men sounding like they intend to break down the door (or windows), I either leave for the evening or turn out the lights and hide in a back room.
At the downtown party, seems like most of the people are in costume, kids and teens and adults and dogs. Lots of fun just people watching.
A 40-something friend says Halloween is his favorite holiday. Think of it - no obligation to have all the extended family, no gift shopping, no food or ornament obligations imposed by tradition. Just gather some friends and have fun.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Halloween is fun for kids in a similar way to Bonfire Night, which also has macabre origins.
But Halloween doesn't have macabre origins.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I'm really glad the scratches appeared on my window at least a week before last Friday.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Hey Brenda. Tixus right? You can always offer them some lead ...
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
Our church has a bright party thing, though this year it was on nov 1st, which I thought was a bit odd if you were trying to provide an alternative. But hey ho. It's very popular - estimated 100 children yesterday, though I didn't go. It's also extremely loud and colourful - the church is full of glitter and tinsel. They do apple-bobbing, biscuit decorating and eating-a-doughnut-off-a-string, there are (nonalcoholic!) cocktails and other stuff which I've forgotten.
It is quite party like, though there are praise songs - kids' ones, v loud, to backing cd.
They put on 2 films - a short cartoon for the under 7s, then a feature film. The kids get a party bag of sweets.
I think it fulfils the party and e numbers criteria quite well, and it's not as cringey as it might be. But whether it's a needed alternative I don't know - Hallowe'en round here is very safe. Small groups of small children, accompanied by an adult or older sibling. They only knock at doors with a pumpkin outside, and I haven't seen or heard any bother.
This Mirror article was doing the facebook rounds and might give an insight into one Anti-Hallowe'en angle (I think he's wrong on pretty much every count....) http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/news-opinion/reverend-j-john-six-reasons-2486777
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
This Mirror article was doing the facebook rounds and might give an insight into one Anti-Hallowe'en angle (I think he's wrong on pretty much every count....) http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/news-opinion/reverend-j-john-six-reasons-2486777
Hmm. Halloween is "unhelpful" because it contradicts parental teachings about the danger of strangers?
Well, actually, one of the things we learn as we grow older is that there ARE situations where we have to approach strangers, including on their doorsteps, and it needs to be done in a safe and cautious manner. Halloween should be a great oppotunity to drive home that distinction.
The rest of the editorial seems like it was written for religious paranoiacs, with four variations on "Halloween is evil". Though he makes an appeal to the "sensitive politically-correct" crowd with his complaint about some costumes being offensive to the disabled.
I suppose he might have a point about that last one. I'd be interested to hear from people who suffer from severe burns, facial wounds, etc as to how they feel about their physical shortcomings being used to symbolize horror and evil.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Our church has a bright party thing, though this year it was on nov 1st, which I thought was a bit odd if you were trying to provide an alternative.
I have recollections of churches throwing parties on the 1st of November from years ago. Not as an alternative to Halloween, but as a celebration for All Saints. A counterpoint to the previous evening. After having some fun recalling (usually mockingly or parodising) evil we then celebrate as we remember those saints who went before us in the faith overcoming evil with good. It always made a lot of sense, even from those traditions that didn't really have All Saints services or other commemorations.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Now high school kids go house to house. Frankly, I'm on edge when half a dozen strong adult-sized men bang on my door after dark, as late as 9 or 10 PM, yelling "open up, we know you are in there." Back when I still opened up, not one of the teens was wearing any hint of costume.
I've never had anyone knock on my door later than nine (I think it helps that the paper publishes trick or treating times).
And I give carrots to people who aren't wearing costumes. Cause you have to at least entertain me if you want candy; that's the deal. If you break it, you get a carrot.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My brother is a pagan, a magus, and he doesn't believe in Satan.
Strangely he does believe in Lucifer... I don't think I'll try and address that one!
Pretty simple, really--the being he calls "Lucifer" isn't the same as the disbelieved being he calls "Satan."
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Sadly - again - most of that kind of stuff is a crock concocted by modern 'wiccans' and the like.
I'm not convinced of that, myself--and, by the way, Wiccan (without scare quotes, please) starts with a capital letter.
Gardner did make up some things, as far as people can tell, but I would not characterize the whole wheel of the year as a "crock."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My brother is a pagan, a magus, and he doesn't believe in Satan.
Strangely he does believe in Lucifer... I don't think I'll try and address that one!
Pretty simple, really--the being he calls "Lucifer" isn't the same as the disbelieved being he calls "Satan."
So say you. But weren't you one of the people complaining that Christians should be able to define their own faith and not have it defined for them by atheists? Shouldn't we allow pagans the same courtesy?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So say you. But weren't you one of the people complaining that Christians should be able to define their own faith and not have it defined for them by atheists? Shouldn't we allow pagans the same courtesy?
Er, is this to me or Mudfrog? In my case, I think I am allowing him the same courtesy:
quote:
Pretty simple, really--the being he calls "Lucifer" isn't the same as the disbelieved being he calls "Satan."
I.e., since Mudfrog's brother does not believe in the being he refers to as "Satan," but does believe in a being he refers to as "Lucifer," those cannot be the same being in his metaphysics. (Though in traditional Christian metaphysics, those are indeed the same entity.)
As I don't know what branch of pagan or magical stuff he's connected to, I have no idea what his specific beliefs are otherwise.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
This Mirror article was doing the facebook rounds and might give an insight into one Anti-Hallowe'en angle (I think he's wrong on pretty much every count....) http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/news-opinion/reverend-j-john-six-reasons-2486777
And this is what they put in the paper the previous year: you can always trust the "Mirror" to give a sound, balanced and intellectual view o hings. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Chastmastr:
quote:
I'm not convinced of that, myself--and, by the way, Wiccan (without scare quotes, please) starts with a capital letter.
Gardner did make up some things, as far as people can tell, but I would not characterize the whole wheel of the year as a "crock."
Well, here they identify themselves with 'the Celts' and in keeping with their traditions, faith and thinking. So the logic goes that they are animal loving, nature honouring, peace loving, all believe in the same deities, and their major feast day happens to be Halloween. Now if that isn't just the biggest pile of steaming bullshit; well, I don't know what is.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
I like much of Flether's comments, among others, on this thread. I find it pretty easy to say to the kids: "this is so much fun! Let's carve a pumpkin and go trick-or-treating!". The comments early on in this thread are spot on: 'light parties' are a perfect way to show how square Christian culture can be. Moreover, all the stuff about demons and zombies isn't real anyway (for some reason it seems this needs to be said).
K.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
Samhain is a quarter day--the midpoints between solstices and equinoxes. Same with Beltaine and so forth.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There wasn't much interest in Halloween and no fuss made about it when I was growing up in the fifties. I have to admit, though, that I don't like the modern stuff. With the concern these days about paedophiles,the whole idea of children going round in the dark and knocking on the doors of complete strangers to be given sweets is a bit creepy. And I really dislike this throwing eggs at people. That is just an excuse for yobbery.
This is a difference between the U.S. and the U.K. In the U.S. it's never felt creepy. All the kids trick-or-treating are accompanied by adults or the older ones are in pairs and groups. When I was a kid we pretty much only approached houses where it looked like people were handing out treats (lit jack-o-lanterns lit, porch light on, etc.) and avoided ones that looked like nobody was home.
Nobody ever threw eggs at people. The worst prank I'd heard of was throwing toilet paper at someone's house and I'd heard of that happening in my area maybe once.
This is exactly what happens in my corner of the UK.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It depends where you are in the UK.
Obviously I didn't get to experience Halloween in Scotland this year, and last year was awkward. But, we had small groups of local children knock on doors (those with porch lights on and other decorations to be welcoming) and 'guising *. Which seems much more fun than just getting given sweets for doing nothing more than saying "trick or treat". I spent an hour walking around with the group of parents who were making sure everyone was OK, that they all watched for traffic when crossing the road, no one went to any of the houses with porch lights off, carrying the carrier bags full of sweets since little hands can only carry so much. Most of the time we don't let ourselves just chat with neighbours, much less walk up to their doors. Fun for kids, and community building for parents.
I can see it working much better in areas where there isn't much traffic, cul-de-sacs or other quite roads. I can certainly see it as a logistic nightmare in denser urban settings with heavy traffic, lots of flats with security entrances etc. ...
* 'guising is the more traditional Scottish activity that has similarities to 'trick or treat', costumes and visiting houses getting sweets. The difference is that the door step visit involves singing songs, telling jokes, a bit of dancing or some other form of entertainment for the householder.
This is a very good description of Halloween in St. Louis, Missouri. Here you must tell a joke or sing a song to get candy. My toddler decided "Jingle Bells" was appropriate. I'm wondering where they got the custom from, as there don't seem to be a lot of Scots around (more Germans and Italians).
As for the dangerous or unwelcoming security gate type neighborhoods, what we usually do is load the kids up and take them to the home of a friend or church member in a more hospitable neighborhood. Although I must say I can't recall ever hearing of a real criminal incident involved with trick or treating (non-urban legend, I mean), and vandalism simply isn't done in my (obviously) limited experience.
My mother called this year and talked about the Trunk or Treat thing her church was doing--a few do it here, too. I'm afraid I was pretty negative about it, though I tried to shut up after it became clear that she thought the traditional way was terribly dangerous. Huh?
Then I took my kid and his cousins around the neighborhood in the traditional way, and said nothing to Mom. As she once did with us.
It was FUN walking the (well-lit) neighborhoods at night in costume, figuring out who might be home and willing to answer the door, getting the occasional fright as someone's battery-operated gadget oooohhhhed at us, seeing the cool decorations and the teenage attempts at a haunted garden tour, getting plenty of exercise, seeing what kind of haul we had at the end of the night--even putting up with the traditional filching of Butterfinger bars by Granddad and the parental tax ("you owe me a Hershey's") for checking our candy (which was an unnecessary ritual we all did because of the urban legends). Oh, and seeing what all our neighborhood friends had decided to wear, at least some of it homemade (Mom dyed surgical scrubs black for some reason I can't recall). Deciding which homeowners were way cool for giving you full-size candy bars, and which had no clue (toothbrushes, gummy hamburgers, etc.) And of course the obligatory over-eating of candy before being shoved off to bed, still wired.
I can't see replacing that with a daytime event in the light with nothing to do but walk a few steps from car to car to grab extra calories. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Halloween became popular in the US BECAUSE it is secular - it allowed a nation of immigrants to celebrate it whatever their cultural background when it became just about dressing up and having sweets. I see Samhain, Halloween and All Saints as being totally different from each other.
I was staying with a friend in London (quiet street in Finchley, mostly families and young professionals) over the weekend, and on Halloween we had two groups of trick or treaters - one of infant school aged children, with their parents, one of slightly older children (about 8?) with their parents waiting at the gate. All very polite, no threat of vandalism, all accompanied by parents, all said thank you for their sweets and Happy Halloween. I seriously cannot see the problem.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Surely the best thing to do is to mark Halloween, for all it is worth, scaring away evil and darkness (and letting the kids get a little bit 'safely scared') on Oct 31, and then celebrating All Saints, for all it is worth (letting the light in and remembering all that is holy and good) on Nov. 1st. So, rather like Good Friday and Easter Day, the two days complement, each other, turning bad into good. Anyway, if nothing else, it's a brilliant excuse for two parties!
Our All Saints party at church comprised of a splendiferous meal, combined with wine, verse and song.
[ 03. November 2014, 15:00: Message edited by: Chorister ]
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
One development around here (I can't comment on elsewhere in North America!) is the growing practice of malls to hand out sweets and have Halloween events. A number of people have commented to me on how this is increasing in popularity and we have discussed whether, longer term, this may result in a reduction of children on the streets in the evening. I can see how, especially on windy and wet nights, it could be more appealing for parents and children to go to a warm mall to do Halloween. If they can fill up on sweets there - what's the point in going out in the wet?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch: One development around here (I can't comment on elsewhere in North America!) is the growing practice of malls to hand out sweets and have Halloween events.
Something similar is happening with the St. Martin's Day celebrations in the Netherlands.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch: One development around here (I can't comment on elsewhere in North America!) is the growing practice of malls to hand out sweets and have Halloween events.
Now that is a development I find horrifying. One loses the community aspects of Halloween and the personalization, and it is replaced by generic decorations and commercialization!
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Moreover, all the stuff about demons and zombies isn't real anyway (for some reason it seems this needs to be said).
Zombies don't seem to be, no (at least the cinematic version rather than actual voudou), but I believe demons are real, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well, here they identify themselves with 'the Celts' and in keeping with their traditions, faith and thinking. So the logic goes that they are animal loving, nature honouring, peace loving, all believe in the same deities, and their major feast day happens to be Halloween. Now if that isn't just the biggest pile of steaming bullshit; well, I don't know what is.
Not sure where "here" is, but there are certainly an array of traditions in the UK, the US, etc. I know it's only Wikipedia, but some basic background is here.
One could say the same kind of thing about us as Christians being identified with the Jews and then drawing distinctions between our faith as it has evolved over the last 2000 years and the actions often shown in the Old Testament. Having Celtic roots does not mean "behaving exactly as the Celts did X centuries ago."
And, again, I think the Wiccans and other pagans I know--and we have some here on the Ship, by the way--would rightly take offense at their beliefs being called that.
[ 03. November 2014, 18:01: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Samhain is a quarter day--the midpoints between solstices and equinoxes. Same with Beltaine and so forth.
I don't know why I bother posting. Yes, it is a midpoint between equinox and solstice. No, it isn't a quarter day. It's a cross quarter day. Midway between the quarter days which are around the equinoxes and solstices.
As I posted above.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Pagan =/= Wiccan. Basically Wicca is a modern reimagining of a mix of various Celtic and Northern European religion. Pagans follow many different deities and/or pantheons, eg Kemetic (Egyptian) deities, Greek deities, Norse deities etc. So there's nothing Pagan about Samhain, it's Wiccan and not Pagan. Some Pagans are both Pagan and Wiccan but most are not. So as Mudfrog says, you do get some Luciferan Pagans (who follow a Hebraic pantheon of sorts) but they do not identify Lucifer as Satan and would not celebrate Samhain.
And as Penny rightly says, Samhain is not a quarter day at all. The quarter days are Lady Day (aka the Annunciation, 25th of March), Midsummer (feast of St John the Baptist, 24th of June), Michaelmas (St Michael and All Angels, 29th September) and Christmas. The cross-quarter days are Candlemas, May Day, Lammas and All Saints. Samhain was a Celtic quarter day until the 5th century but is now roughly a cross-quarter day.
Lady Day used to be the 6th of April which is why the tax year starts then.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Actually, Wiccans are pagans, but not all pagans are Wiccans. "Pagan" is an umbrella term here. Christians are monotheists but not all monotheists are Christians, etc.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Not to derail the thread... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Actually, Lady Day was the 25th March - 9 months bofore the 25th December - but, when the calendar was changed, the date for the tax year was moved so that the year in which the change happened was the full 365 days. Before that change, the day labelled the 25th March was falling on what would have been the 6th April if the year hadn't got out of kilter with reality, but it wasn't called the 6th April.
[ 03. November 2014, 22:19: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Actually, Wiccans are pagans, but not all pagans are Wiccans. "Pagan" is an umbrella term here. Christians are monotheists but not all monotheists are Christians, etc.
Paganism refers to historical and/or indigenous religions. Wicca is Neo-Paganism since it is not either, but a modern mixture of various Pagan beliefs. Eg, use of the more general God and Goddess/Lord and Lady figures as opposed to actual Pagan deities. Pagans do not recognise Wicca as being actually Pagan.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Although I mostly agree with the summary you gave here, I don't think there is always a uniformity of terminology. I've heard Wiccans denying that they are Neo-Pagans. It can be confusing for outsiders sometimes.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Paganism refers to historical and/or indigenous religions. Wicca is Neo-Paganism since it is not either, but a modern mixture of various Pagan beliefs. Eg, use of the more general God and Goddess/Lord and Lady figures as opposed to actual Pagan deities. Pagans do not recognise Wicca as being actually Pagan.
"Pagan" has many meanings, and since Wiccans often self-identify as pagans, I will call them what they prefer.
(Again, not to derail the thread, since it's getting further and further afield of the actual thread topic.)
[ 04. November 2014, 01:23: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Actually, Wiccans are pagans, but not all pagans are Wiccans. "Pagan" is an umbrella term here. Christians are monotheists but not all monotheists are Christians, etc.
Paganism refers to historical and/or indigenous religions. Wicca is Neo-Paganism since it is not either, but a modern mixture of various Pagan beliefs. Eg, use of the more general God and Goddess/Lord and Lady figures as opposed to actual Pagan deities. Pagans do not recognise Wicca as being actually Pagan.
The parallels with Mormonism are choking.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The parallels with Mormonism are choking.
I thought of that too--or even more mainstream churches, as I've known some Fundamentalists who really will try to argue the same way about the Roman Catholic Church as about the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. (And, if they had known anything about Anglican/Episcopal stuff, they'd have lumped in the Episcopal church with the RCCs.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The parallels with Mormonism are choking.
I thought of that too--or even more mainstream churches, as I've known some Fundamentalists who really will try to argue the same way about the Roman Catholic Church as about the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. (And, if they had known anything about Anglican/Episcopal stuff, they'd have lumped in the Episcopal church with the RCCs.)
Okay now you've lost me. Are you saying that Fundamentalists will say that the RCC is not an ancient faith, but a modern mish-mash of bits and pieces from other ancient faiths? Because that's what Mormonism is, and that's what Wicca is. But it's sure as hell not what the RCC is.
By the bye, I had a friend who was a real pagan (I called him "paleopagan" and he thought it was funny but didn't deny the term), and he referred to Wiccans as tree-hugging, crystal-sucking Smurf worshippers, but that was just him. He was by the way, with one or two exceptions, the most thoroughly Christian man I have ever met, as that term used to be used for someone's moral qualities.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Don't ask, Mousethief, you really don't want to go there ...
I've come across fundamentalist tracts and websites that suggest that the RC 'cult of the Virgin Mary' derives from pagan models ... or even some kind of mother-god worshipping sect on the distant Planet Zarg (ok, I made that last bit up) ...
But yes, there are some fundies around who portray the RCC as some kind of relatively late development of all many of mish-mash nefariousness.
Like you would not believe.
Or perhaps you would.
Think Chick Tracts on speed.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Chast:
quote:
Not sure where "here" is, but there are certainly an array of traditions in the UK, the US, etc.
'Here' is Ireland, and sadly 'here' they are all of a type; dressing up in hobbit costumes, hugging trees, trying to twist Halloween into something that it never really was, repeating some asinine cliche about stuff coming back times three and worshipping the spirits of the elements. They very often refer to themselves as true Irish Celts and as a people returning to their ancient religious roots. Now if they really wanted to do this they should return to multiple local deities (some not so very nice), paint their faces blue, develop a fascination for heads minus the body, get involved in protracted and bloody warfare to defend their gods honour, bankrupt and endanger entire villages just to build massive stone tombs (not that they aren't impressive mind) and set about divining the future via some poor old buggers intestines; but no, they would much rather re-imagine it all - and that is the key word.
Some things just shouldn't be revisited because right back in the first place they were just plain old shit. If you're going to reimagine something then just go ahead and make it up, just don't try and pretend it's really ancient and mysterious and a return to 'the good old days'.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
There were always reasons why not being pagan any more worked back in the day. And it clearly wasn't always not very saintly Olafs and so on waving swords about like IS, because it stuck.
I feel it a good idea to point out the association of the burial of large numbers of babies associated with temples to Venus. And bog bodies.
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Don't ask, Mousethief, you really don't want to go there ...
I've come across fundamentalist tracts and websites that suggest that the RC 'cult of the Virgin Mary' derives from pagan models ... or even some kind of mother-god worshipping sect on the distant Planet Zarg (ok, I made that last bit up) ...
But yes, there are some fundies around who portray the RCC as some kind of relatively late development of all many of mish-mash nefariousness.
Like you would not believe.
Or perhaps you would.
Think Chick Tracts on speed.
As all kinds of 'pagan' religions had cults of virgin mothers at the time of Jesus' birth I don't think that it is going too far to say that the RCC's infatuation with virgin worship derives from such a source. You wouldn't have to be a fundamentalist maniac to draw that conclusion.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Trouty:
quote:
As all kinds of 'pagan' religions had cults of virgin mothers at the time of Jesus' birth I don't think that it is going too far to say that the RCC's infatuation with virgin worship derives from such a source. You wouldn't have to be a fundamentalist maniac to draw that conclusion.
Lol, yes, and I'm sure it had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that she gave birth to the Christ.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: Are you saying that Fundamentalists will say that the RCC is not an ancient faith, but a modern mish-mash of bits and pieces from other ancient faiths?
Don't underestimate what Fundamentalists will say.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Zombies don't seem to be, no (at least the cinematic version rather than actual voudou), but I believe demons are real, yes.
Really? Little red guys with tritons or pitchforks? Have you seen one?
K.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Zombies don't seem to be, no (at least the cinematic version rather than actual voudou), but I believe demons are real, yes.
Really? Little red guys with tritons or pitchforks? Have you seen one?
Um, yeah, because if there are demons, they must have tritons or pitchforks. So if there are no beings with pitchforks, there are no demons. Bit of a fallacy there, one that existed in Lewis's day, so it's not even original...
"If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you." --Screwtape
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Don't ask, Mousethief, you really don't want to go there ...
I've come across fundamentalist tracts and websites that suggest that the RC 'cult of the Virgin Mary' derives from pagan models ... or even some kind of mother-god worshipping sect on the distant Planet Zarg (ok, I made that last bit up) ...
But yes, there are some fundies around who portray the RCC as some kind of relatively late development of all many of mish-mash nefariousness.
Like you would not believe.
Or perhaps you would.
Think Chick Tracts on speed.
As all kinds of 'pagan' religions had cults of virgin mothers at the time of Jesus' birth I don't think that it is going too far to say that the RCC's infatuation with virgin worship derives from such a source. You wouldn't have to be a fundamentalist maniac to draw that conclusion.
That might hold some water if the RCC actually worshipped the BVM.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Since Chick Tracts never seemed to be overly concerned about factual accuracy when describing the evils of whatever was their target, I don't expect "Chick Tracts on speed" would be any better. It's all basically hysteria, and hysterical reactions don't produce logical actions. Someone just needs a good slap across the face.
Quite like some of the reactions to Halloween. Children dress up as witches, therefore they're practising witchcraft. Quick, set up a "bright and light" party to save them from having to be burned at the stake for performing satanic rituals.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Paganism refers to historical and/or indigenous religions. Wicca is Neo-Paganism since it is not either, but a modern mixture of various Pagan beliefs. Eg, use of the more general God and Goddess/Lord and Lady figures as opposed to actual Pagan deities. Pagans do not recognise Wicca as being actually Pagan.
That seems to largely depend on the pagans, in my experience. A fair few practitioners of religions inspired by ancient northern European religion reject the term Pagan in favour of Heathen, for example. Plenty of non-Wiccan pagans will keep Samhain too, particularly those with an interest in pre-Christian British religion. Most pagans I know acknowledge that their religion is not a continuation of ancient practices but a reconstruction using the symbology and mythology of those cultures.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The parallels with Mormonism are choking.
I thought of that too--or even more mainstream churches, as I've known some Fundamentalists who really will try to argue the same way about the Roman Catholic Church as about the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. (And, if they had known anything about Anglican/Episcopal stuff, they'd have lumped in the Episcopal church with the RCCs.)
Okay now you've lost me. Are you saying that Fundamentalists will say that the RCC is not an ancient faith, but a modern mish-mash of bits and pieces from other ancient faiths? Because that's what Mormonism is, and that's what Wicca is. But it's sure as hell not what the RCC is.
No, I meant (and misunderstood you to mean) the way that Fundamentalists often regard the RCC, the Mormons, and the JWs all in one lump as "not really Christian, but pseudo-Christian cults"--and that in comparison to the way some pagan reconstructionists may regard Wicca as "not really pagan."
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Most mainstream Christians regard JWs and Mormons that way though? It's not a fundie thing.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Agreed!
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
My point was that within Christian denominations, we have some that (Fundies) will say that others (the RCC) aren't "really" Christian, and lump them in with groups that even the vast majority of Christians regard as "outside." (And, if said Fundies really understood Anglican/Episcopal stuff, and for that matter Eastern Orthodoxy, they'd lump all of us in with the RCCs too, what with all of our doctrines about the Sacraments and the saints and so on.)
Though I think it could be argued that the Mormons and JWs are still, at least in a technical sense*, Christian--just, by the doctrinal standards accepted by most of us, heretical. But they're heretics within a Christian context, not Muslim or Hindu or such.
In the same way, I would argue that the way that some pagan reconstructionists claim that Wicca is not pagan is analogous to the way that some Christian fundamentalists regard the RCC.
* (And for that matter--even if Mormons and JWs have what orthodox teaching (and I) believe to be a terribly confused notion of Who Jesus is, and His precise nature--if we were all back in ancient Rome, we could still have been martyred for His sake. I can't believe that afterward He would have said, "Sorry, you died in My Name rather than worship Caesar, but you didn't have the proper doctrine of the Trinity nailed down in your head, so off to Hell you go...")
[ 04. November 2014, 20:08: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Arethosemyfeet: Most pagans I know acknowledge that their religion is not a continuation of ancient practices but a reconstruction using the symbology and mythology of those cultures.
You seem to have had more luck than I. I have respect for (Neo-)Paganism, but I just seem to meet the weird ones.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
And I haven't yet met a pagan (whether Wiccan or otherwise) who claims that they aren't reconstructing things to some extent.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's not a fundie thing to regard Mormons and JWs as 'marginal' or heretical - but it's certainly a pretty fundie thing to lump the RCC alongside such groups.
I've certainly come across plenty of more fundamentalist or strongly conservative evangelicals who would regard the RCC as some kind of 'cult' and not a 'true church' in their definition.
Whilst I've heard liberal Anglicans and others express strong misgivings about the RCC I've yet to come across any who'd lump it in with the Mormons and JWs etc.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's not a fundie thing to regard Mormons and JWs as 'marginal' or heretical - but it's certainly a pretty fundie thing to lump the RCC alongside such groups.
Although it may even be broader than that. One of my pet peeves in the univ. course I teach is when students try to make a comparison between "Catholics and Christians" (as if two separate entities) for the reasons you allude to. The interesting thing, though, is that my Catholic students are just as prone to making that comparison as my evangelical students. Which is most likely due to the way evangelicals have dominated American Christian culture and appropriated the term as their own, but still, disconcerting to say the least...
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The interesting thing, though, is that my Catholic students are just as prone to making that comparison as my evangelical students.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The interesting thing, though, is that my Catholic students are just as prone to making that comparison as my evangelical students.
Reminds me of the following exchange I heard at third hand (but from a reliable source):
Q: Are you a Christian?
A: No, I'm an Anglican, thank God!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Arethosemyfeet: Most pagans I know acknowledge that their religion is not a continuation of ancient practices but a reconstruction using the symbology and mythology of those cultures.
You seem to have had more luck than I. I have respect for (Neo-)Paganism, but I just seem to meet the weird ones.
The nutty ones are certainly out there, but I've only encountered them in the deeper reaches of the internet. You know, the ones who claim that they're continuing Britain's ancient religion passed down to them by generations of secret practitioners since pre-saxon times; that millions of pagans were burnt at the stake in the middle ages etc. etc. My pagan friends are somewhat keen to distance themselves, much as I tend to be keen to distance myself from YECs.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Zombies don't seem to be, no (at least the cinematic version rather than actual voudou), but I believe demons are real, yes.
Really? Little red guys with tritons or pitchforks? Have you seen one?
Um, yeah, because if there are demons, they must have tritons or pitchforks. So if there are no beings with pitchforks, there are no demons. Bit of a fallacy there, one that existed in Lewis's day, so it's not even original...
"If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you." --Screwtape
Clearly I was talking about the context of Halloween. Screwtape is a work of fiction, not a lexicon of creatures in or out of the world.
K.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My pagan friends are somewhat keen to distance themselves, much as I tend to be keen to distance myself from YECs.
That's perhaps the best analogy here, I think.
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Screwtape is a work of fiction, not a lexicon of creatures in or out of the world.
Of course, but it's meant to make a point, and I agree with that point. Lewis even says a very similar thing, wholly non-fictionally, in the foreword, about how believing in spirits is not the same (and never has been the same among thoughtful people) as believing that the pictorial representations of them are the same as the reality.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
ChastMastr wrote:
quote:
* (And for that matter--even if Mormons and JWs have what orthodox teaching (and I) believe to be a terribly confused notion of Who Jesus is, and His precise nature--if we were all back in ancient Rome, we could still have been martyred for His sake. I can't believe that afterward He would have said, "Sorry, you died in My Name rather than worship Caesar, but you didn't have the proper doctrine of the Trinity nailed down in your head, so off to Hell you go...")
I think there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. Not sure what the techincal name would be, but it essentially amounts to saying that, in looking to define a group, we can take as authoritative the opinion of people who want to kill members of that group.
Whereas, in fact, both the Roman persecutors and the avant la lettre JWs could share the same misunderstanding of Christianity.
Imagine that there is a sect somewhere whose esoteric interpretation of the New Testament leads them to conclude that incest is a sacrament, Asian people are the spawn of Satan, and Jesus was actually a giant jackrabbit from the Andrmoeda galaxy taken human form.
Now, suppose a crazed gunman is going around asking people "Are you a Christian?", and blowing away the people who answer yes. So, he approaches a member of the esoteric sect, asks them his usual question, and shoots the guy's head off after getting an affirmative answer.
All Christians now have to accept racist, extraterrestrial jackrabbit-worshipping incest aficianadoes as fellow believers?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Imagine that there is a sect somewhere whose esoteric interpretation of the New Testament leads them to conclude that incest is a sacrament, Asian people are the spawn of Satan, and Jesus was actually a giant jackrabbit from the Andrmoeda galaxy taken human form.
Now, suppose a crazed gunman is going around asking people "Are you a Christian?", and blowing away the people who answer yes. So, he approaches a member of the esoteric sect, asks them his usual question, and shoots the guy's head off after getting an affirmative answer.
All Christians now have to accept racist, extraterrestrial jackrabbit-worshipping incest aficianadoes as fellow believers?
That's a non sequitur. The more relevant question is whether you'd rather Jesus had mercy on this person, or cast him into the lake of fire?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Enoch wrote:
quote:
That's a non sequitur. The more relevant question is whether you'd rather Jesus had mercy on this person, or cast him into the lake of fire?
But Chast suggested that Jesus should have mercy on the person BECAUSE that person professed faith in Jesus.
quote:
* (And for that matter--even if Mormons and JWs have what orthodox teaching (and I) believe to be a terribly confused notion of Who Jesus is, and His precise nature--if we were all back in ancient Rome, we could still have been martyred for His sake. I can't believe that afterward He would have said, "Sorry, you died in My Name rather than worship Caesar, but you didn't have the proper doctrine of the Trinity nailed down in your head, so off to Hell you go...")
In other words, professing faith in Jesus, in and of itself, should do something to put you in Jesus' good books.
I suppose this TECHNICALLY isn't the same thing as saying that anyone who professes faith in Jesus is a Christian. Chast could be saying that, in addition to Christians and non-Christians, there is a third category "Non-Christians who think they're Christians, and therefore should be saved just like Christians are."
If that's what Chast was positing, than fair enough. But it would make for an interesting form of quasi-universalism. Salvation for anyone who thinks they're a Christian, correctly or otherwise.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Stetson: Salvation for anyone who thinks they're a Christian, correctly or otherwise.
Isn't it great?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Oh FFS. We're not talking about jackrabbits here. We're talking about people who believe that, 2000 years ago, this guy showed up who said that everyone should love each other, who is in some special sense the Son of God, who was crucified and raised from the dead, and through whose sacrifice we are forgiven our sins.
I was trying to make the point that they would be martyred for following Christ, regardless of a confused understanding of the details.
(As for Jesus having mercy on people in general, I trust Him to be merciful even to those who haven't heard of Him, not only those who have orthodox or heretical faith in Him. How He will sort it out, I don't know.)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Oh FFS. We're not talking about jackrabbits here. We're talking about people who believe that, 2000 years ago, this guy showed up who said that everyone should love each other, who is in some special sense the Son of God, who was crucified and raised from the dead, and through whose sacrifice we are forgiven our sins.
Actually, in the case of JWs, we're talking about Michael The Archangel, like jackrabbits, a created being, albeit unlike jackrabbits, one who went on o create everything else besides himself
Straight from the horse's mouth
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
(As for Jesus having mercy on people in general, I trust Him to be merciful even to those who haven't heard of Him, not only those who have orthodox or heretical faith in Him. How He will sort it out, I don't know.)
Well, just to be clear, you did seem to know(or at least have a pretty strong inkling) that he would be merciful to those with a heretical faith. But you are agnostic as to how he would treat those who disbelieve out of ignorance?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Actually, in the case of JWs, we're talking about Michael The Archangel
I know. Hence the word "heretical."
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, just to be clear, you did seem to know(or at least have a pretty strong inkling) that he would be merciful to those with a heretical faith. But you are agnostic as to how he would treat those who disbelieve out of ignorance?
What? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I trust Him to be merciful, full stop. How He will sort it out, I don't know.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I suppose this TECHNICALLY isn't the same thing as saying that anyone who professes faith in Jesus is a Christian. Chast could be saying that, in addition to Christians and non-Christians, there is a third category "Non-Christians who think they're Christians, and therefore should be saved just like Christians are."
If that's what Chast was positing, than fair enough. But it would make for an interesting form of quasi-universalism. Salvation for anyone who thinks they're a Christian, correctly or otherwise.
While I would love to be a universalist, no, I don't think it works that way. I don't even think it works that way for people whose believed theology is impeccably orthodox.
My God, this thread is splintering into such an array of divergent topics... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I saw a very weird pumpkin tonight - our village firework display also showcases carved lanterns from the school, done for Halloween. There was one with a foetus, in a womb, thumb near its mouth, umbilical cord and placenta. Someone said it could be turning an activity usually concerned with death into one of life.
I didn't like it, clever and well done though it was.
[ 05. November 2014, 21:34: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Stetson: Salvation for anyone who thinks they're a Christian, correctly or otherwise.
Isn't it great?
What about salvation for people who aren't Christians? Correctly or otherwise.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Screwtape is a work of fiction, not a lexicon of creatures in or out of the world.
I didn't quote Screwtape to lend support to the existence of anything. I quoted Screwtape to show the logical fallacy you had committed.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: What about salvation for people who aren't Christians? Correctly or otherwise.
Of course. You know that I'm a Universalist.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Actually, in the case of JWs, we're talking about Michael The Archangel
I know. Hence the word "heretical."
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, just to be clear, you did seem to know(or at least have a pretty strong inkling) that he would be merciful to those with a heretical faith. But you are agnostic as to how he would treat those who disbelieve out of ignorance?
What? I trust Him to be merciful, full stop. How He will sort it out, I don't know.
Well, it's just that, earlier, you did seem to know how God would sort it all out...
quote:
* (And for that matter--even if Mormons and JWs have what orthodox teaching (and I) believe to be a terribly confused notion of Who Jesus is, and His precise nature--if we were all back in ancient Rome, we could still have been martyred for His sake. I can't believe that afterward He would have said, "Sorry, you died in My Name rather than worship Caesar, but you didn't have the proper doctrine of the Trinity nailed down in your head, so off to Hell you go...")
At a minimum, you seem to be saying that you know he will not condemn the people in question.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0