Halloween - Do you celebrate or not?

AV1611VET said:

I think a point worth considering is that, when someone observes Halloween in a neutral fashion (dressing up as Barbie, or Spider Man, or the Lone Ranger), he is doing it in spite of Halloween, not with respect to it.

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with this. As mentioned in another thread, I do take my son trick-or-treating. But we do that "in spite of" many of the aspects of the day as currently celebrated. There are decorations and other kids' costumes that make me uncomfortable. It's walking a fine line. This year I was glad when it was all over, honestly.

I don't see Halloween as being in the same category as Christmas and Easter or anywhere close. Nor would I say that we celebrate Halloween the way we celebrate those holidays.

Paulos23 said:

Really. Nothing like that ever happened when I saw them used. In fact, nothing much happened at all....

Click to expand...

One of the jobs of the Holy Spirit in this dispensation is to keep demonic activity in check.

That's why we don't see people falling into the fire (sans Buddhists) or into the water as much as they did in Jesus' time.

But every once in awhile, one can beacon (or summon) the spiritual world and, if the interface is weak enough, a member of that world can break through and either possess an unbeliever or oppress a believer.

AV1611VET said:

Who said anything about love?

This is what you said:

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't know how to go to "Heart connection" other than through Love. Maybe you have other ideas?

AV1611VET said:

When a person uses a Ouija board, or Tarot cards, or other such like, they are beaconing the spiritual world to do something on their behalf.

In the few cases where the spiritual world can respond, bad things happen.

Guns are not objects that beacon the spiritual world.

Think of Ouija boards and Tarot cards as keys to a locked door, and my point should become clearer.

Click to expand...

Your point still makes no sense.

If they could consistently becon things in the spiritual world, we wouldn’t be debating the existence of demons or spirits. There would be no atheists because spirituality is proven and summonable. That is not the case. You unlock your locked door and you are greeted by a dog, you now know there’s a dog on the other side of that door and every time you open it, you’ll see a dog. Nobody says “the existence of dogs is unprovable” because the dog is right there. IThats not the case with either Tarot or Ouija. If opening them led to a demon, there would be indisputable proof of demons, and there isn’t.

And even if it were, even by your own description it’s because of how they were used, not that simply portals because they exist. The argument with at guns aren’t inherently bad because it’s how they’re used would still apply to Tarot and Ouija… It’s illogical to read about how somebody kills 18 people and says “it’s the person not the gun,” but they see a Ouija Board and “that is inherently dangerous.” No toy store, book store, novelty store, house, or building has ever imploded, been damaged, destroyed, or people hurt because the Tarot decks and Ouija Boards inside sucked them to hell. I have more than 400 decks. I worry my house will burn down because I forgot to turn off a crockpot before I went to work, not because one of the decks or Ouija boards will turn my house inside out a la “Poltergeist.”

People have been killed in the name of the Bible, Christianity, and messages from the Christian God. Would that mean somebidy eho says those are inherently bad are actually correct?

AV1611VET said:

That's like saying it's okay to use Ouija boards to teach kids the alphabet.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with Tarot cards. They work by intuition, which is something we all have as Human Beings. On the other hand I have to admit that Ouija boards creep me out. But looking inward at myself, I suspect that's because I've never used one and all I know about them are from the negative things people say about them.

ZephBonkerer said:

You don't "baptize" or "Christianize" inanimate objects.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Jesus should have told that to the Pharisees. Mark 7:4
and, coming from the market-place, if they do not baptize themselves, they do not eat; and many other things there are that they received to hold, baptisms of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches.

ZephBonkerer said:

I was pointing out a common misconception about the use of the word "modesty" in 1 Timothy 2:9. In our society, that verse is often interpreted in a manner very different than the kind of thing Paul had in mind.

Click to expand...

How do we decide on "what Paul had in mind"?

ZephBonkerer said:

I don't know what made you think I would even hint that the words in the Bible have no value. That was a rather bizarre question to ask in this context.

Click to expand...

It was a question. Or do you mean people have a misconception that the words in the Bible don't really have any value, but their ideas do?
Haven't you seen this before, where persons think that their ideas, and interpretations have more value than actual scripture?
I could give an example, but I don't want to discredit anyone.

ZephBonkerer said:

If you are a Bible-believing Christian, you are a Bible-believing Christian 24/7. We abide by solid ethical standards at all times.

As for modesty, I'm not one for dress codes. In my eyes, the only rule that matters: use your good judgment. If you want to come to Church dressed like a Vegas showgirl, I won't stop you. I might advise you to reconsider, though.

A two-piece bikini is fine for the beach, but I would not consider it wise for Sunday morning. There's a time and a place for these things.

Click to expand...

We are talking about a halter top.
However, people have various opinions on scripture.
We just have to go separate ways at times. Jesus will sort out what we can't.

ZephBonkerer said:

I have a contempt for legalism and for those who elevate their own personal opinions as if they were on par with the Word of God. I also have a lot of problems with the whole "modesty culture" thing (try a Google search on that term) and other aspects of Churchianity.

A story: I once came across a woman who was all offended because one of her contacts invited her to participate in an online group for boudoir photography. She was all "why would a Christian woman want anything to do with that!?" I advised her to simply decline the invite and let that be the end of it. No need to make a big deal of it.

For whatever reason, she wasn't having it. I left with the impression her agenda was to signal her own virtue and supposed purity by making a show of her disapproval of boudoir photography. Mature believers do not need to signal their own virtue this way.

Click to expand...

I have a contempt for legalism and for those who elevate their own personal opinions as if they were on par with the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Cough Cough
That excludes you, of course.
I understand. I would say the same thing.

ZephBonkerer said:

In some cases, I believe that is a fair assessment. Paul addressed this matter in 1 Corinthians 8. Solid, mature believers would be less likely to concern themselves about what has been sacrificed to something that can neither talk nor walk nor hear nor see. But he also advised the more mature believers to not rub it in (1 Cor 10:27-29).

Click to expand...

I'm certain you aren't saying the mature person does not concern themselves with immodesty.
So, I'm not getting the connection.

In order to discern between right and wrong, when it comes to dress, one must know what modesty is.
What's the definition of modesty, you accept?

dlamberth said:

Personally, I don't know how to go to "Heart connection" other than through Love. Maybe you have other ideas?

Click to expand...

Tastes and interests.

What's that saying?

Birds of a feather flock together?

Tropical Wilds said:

If they could consistently becon things in the spiritual world, we wouldn’t be debating the existence of demons or spirits. There would be no atheists because spirituality is proven and summonable.

Click to expand...

If you were on the other side of that door, and someone was summoning you, and you knew that if you answered that summons, there are unbelievers waiting to see what happens so they won't be atheists anymore, would you step through?

What if you were in your house, wanting to jump out and scare an innocent person, would you jump out at someone who stood in front of your house with a group of unbelievers waiting to see what happens?

This cartoon demonstrates my point very well:

AV1611VET said:

One of the jobs of the Holy Spirit in this dispensation is to keep demonic activity in check.

That's why we don't see people falling into the fire (sans Buddhists) or into the water as much as they did in Jesus' time.

But every once in awhile, one can beacon (or summon) the spiritual world and, if the interface is weak enough, a member of that world can break through and either possess an unbeliever or oppress a believer.

Click to expand...

So nothing happens, you give the credit to the Holy Spirit.

I shouldn't have expected anything else from someone that takes the Bible over science.

Paulos23 said:

So nothing happens, you give the credit to the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Paulos23 said:

I shouldn't have expected anything else from someone that takes the Bible over science.

Click to expand...

By all means, feel free to explain Halloween to me from a scientific perspective.

AV1611VET said:

By all means, feel free to explain Halloween to me from a scientific perspective.

Click to expand...

It is a made-up holiday made to have kids get candy instead of causing mischief.

Paulos23 said:

It is a made-up holiday made to have kids get candy instead of causing mischief.

Click to expand...

Okie doke.

This is your scientific explanation?

And you wonder why I take what the Bible says over science?

ZephBonkerer said:

I wasn't referring to basic hygiene - even pagans and atheists do the dishes, unless Mommy is there to do that for them.

Click to expand...

Can Mommy tell us why the Law of Moses states why they were to let the land lie fallow every seventh year?

Leviticus 25:4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

Desk trauma said:

I don't do the dollar store Socratic tap dance.

Click to expand...

If that wasn't "dollar store Socratic", I'd say it was beautifully executed.
If I had to judge that dance, I'd give it 10/10.

To answer the question. There are no "magical powers".
The only magical things people know about, exist only in those little children's bedtime story books, or Walt Disney's movies.
There are also the fictional series like Harry Potter, and so on.

Any power beyond man comes from God.
These are powerful works, we call miracles.

Satan can perform signs, and powerful works, but these are deceptive works, even his demons are capable of.
2 Thessalonians 2:9
that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,

None of this is magic.

ZephBonkerer said:

You can discern that based on the context of the reading.

Click to expand...

What I look for is the Hebrew or Greek expression the writer uses, along with the context.
The Greek word Paul used is, aidós (αἰδώς), which means a sense of shame.

The context involves how women carry themselves - Dress modestly, with decency; respectable apparel; discreetly; with decency; orderly; virtuousness, and things like these.

Hence, Paul is encouraging the Cristian females to not be the opposite of modest :
Immodesty is defined as

• lacking humility or decency.
• indecent; shameless.

What I am seeing, taking these into consideration, is the need for Christian females, to ensure that their dress is not too revealing - not showing too much, so that they be seen as different from the shameless.
In fact, I am reminded of the first woman.

Genesis 3:7
King James Version
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

New American Standard Bible
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves waist coverings.

NASB
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

They clothed themselves.



Then God clothed them.



Genesis 3:21
King James Bible
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

New King James Version
Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

So, it looks very much like decency, virtuousness, discretion, and respect for self and others, were involved in Paul's reference to modesty in dress.
Do you see something different?
Of course you do.

ZephBonkerer said:

Regarding modesty, when Paul discussed it, he was advising that people refrain from calling undue attention to themselves. Halter tops and short skirts weren't part of the discussion, but in some settings, that could be an issue. If you were a female guest at a wedding, you would not dress in a flashy way so as to upstage the bride on her special day - that would be bad manners, and really a lack of respect for the bride.

Click to expand...

calling undue attention to themselves.

Click to expand...

You mean like wearing bright yellow.

"Whoa. You're blinding me sister. Did you have to wear the sun?"
So, it does involve considering others? I agree.

ZephBonkerer said:

For whatever reason, she wasn't having it. I left with the impression her agenda was to signal her own virtue and supposed purity by making a show of her disapproval of boudoir photography. Mature believers do not need to signal their own virtue this way.

Click to expand...

With the online of social media and message boards, virtue signaling will never go away. In the pre-Internet days, if anyone "virtue signaled", it was between 2 friends or something, and they moved on with their lives. They had no platform or soapbox.

CoreyD said:

What I said is,
These Evangelical and Fundamentalist circles must not have kept up their Bible reading, if they relied on a Satanist to blow the whistle on what God had long condemned.
The Christians were no part of Satan's world, and they remain that way. 1 John 5:19

Click to expand...

Which simply tells me that you are choosing to believe in nonsense when it comes to Halloween.

CoreyD said:

A literal wizard? What do you mean by "literal wizard"?

Click to expand...

Well, apparently you seem to be under the impression that when stage performers pull rabbits out of hats they are using actual magic and spells to do so.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Which simply tells me that you are choosing to believe in nonsense when it comes to Halloween.

Click to expand...

What nonsense is that? What is actually stated as true?

ViaCrucis said:

Well, apparently you seem to be under the impression that when stage performers pull rabbits out of hats they are using actual magic and spells to do so.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

You made a statement about "literal wizard". Surely you must know what that is. Do you?

CoreyD said:

That's not how history books are to be treated.
They just give the facts. It is a fact that it is widely believed. That's not concluding the belief is true.
It's similar to this. Halloween

• One theory holds that many Halloween traditions were influenced by Celtic harvest festivals, particularly the Gaelic festival Samhain, which are believed to have pagan roots.[14][15][16][17]
• Some go further and suggest that Samhain may have been Christianized as All Hallow's Day, along with its eve, by the early Church.[18]
• Other academics believe Halloween began solely as a Christian holiday, being the vigil of All Hallow's Day.[19][20][21][22]

Stating what is believed, is just presenting that information that persons would know.
I haven't read the entire article, so I cannot say, if they went into details.

What do you think of this:
What are the origins of All Saints Day and All Souls Day? Are these linked with paganism and Halloween?
Both the Feast of All Saints and the Feast of All Souls evolved in the life of the Church independently of paganism and Halloween. However, elements of pagan practices were perhaps “baptized” by some cultures or attached themselves to the celebration of All Saints and All Souls.

Do you think this is a good source?


Good points. Thanks.


The source I quoted above, says this:
Now for the pagan connection: November 1 marked Samhain, the beginning of the Celtic winter.
Besides the Celtic traditions in place, the Roman conquest of Britain in AD 43 brought two other pagan feasts: Feralia was held in late October to honor the dead. Another Autumn festival honored Pomona, the goddess of fruits and trees; probably through this festival, apples became associated with Halloween. Elements of these Roman celebrations were combined with the Celtic Samhain.

With the spread of Christianity and the establishment of All Saints Day, some of these pagan customs remained in the English speaking world for All Hallows Eve (or Halloween, All Saints Eve), perhaps at first more out of superstition, and later, more out of fun. Nevertheless, All Saints Day clearly arose from genuine Christian devotion independent of Halloween.

Nevertheless, All Souls Day as well as all Saints Day are rooted in Christian belief and arose in this life of the Church through a healthy spirituality, despite some pagan trappings that may have survived and have remained attached to their celebration.

What do you think of that?

Click to expand...

I would first be curious how anyone would know that the Irish observed Samhain on November 1st. To make that claim we'd need to establish that the Celts (or at least the Irish anyway) were using the Roman Calendar before their conversion to Christianity.

Because "November 1st" is meaningless if "November" isn't even relevant to a culture or people. More than likely when the Irish observed Samhain it was in the vicinity of when those who followed the Roman Calendar identified a day as the 1st day of November.

I think that in some places the "trappings" of Pagan ritual did linger as cultural artifacts.

I think this is also probably how gift-giving became associated with Christmas. While Christmas has no connection with anything Pagan, gift-giving in winter probably does have its roots in Saturnalia. When the Roman Empire became Christian and Christianity became the official religion under Theodosius I, Paganism was not only receding, it became illegal. But cultural artifacts stayed. Saturnalia stopped being Saturnalia, and instead became a more generic, "secular"--people would engage in feasting and gift-giving, though the religious significance faded from memory. And as the MIddle Ages replaced Antiquity, and the Middle Ages gave way to the Early Modern Period the Feast of Christmas came to be associated with feasting, merry-making, gift-giving.

Christmas isn't Pagan.
But the origins of gift-giving may go back to this particular Roman custom--which lingered culturally, and over time became associated with the Christian holiday.

In the same way it is possible that the lighting of bonfires may have a pre-Christian Celtic origin, but while the bonfires remained, the religious significance of them faded from memory. That in some parts of the world bonfires are lit around All Saints doesn't make All Saints (or it's previous Eve) Pagan.

Halloween, in a Christian context, isn't spooky scary bats and bugs and things that go bump in the night. That's an American invention. Which is why Halloween is often viewed by many parts of the world as a purely American thing. The Eve of All Saints exists throughout the Western Christian world, but Halloween as a day of spooky scary skeletons and candy--that's uniquely American in invention. Not Pagan, not Christian, just American.

-CryptoLutheran