Skulls, Halloween, dark stuff...

First no brownies and now no Santa,Bunny and Fairy.

That's ok because I got a trusty something that will um it does something and I don't think it's trusty and I might just be silly so in closing yeah no brownies darn!

Tins said:

That's true, I hadn't thought about it that way...hmm...food for thought, for sure.

Click to expand...

Happy to read it

Why would I associate death as a bad thing? I don't know...lol...now, I am a pretty simple person on a theological level and I know that. A LOT goes over my head. I do question from time to time, as I am doing now. So don't mind me if sometimes the stuff just goes right over me. But this seems like something maybe I could correct in my theology...death = dark and I don't know why, because I'm going to Heaven, therefore, as a believer, death = life lol

Click to expand...

We do not go to heaven; we experience it. Heaven is not the goal; the hope is in the resurrection of the death and the life of the world to come.

The world to come...not some different planet...not a literal ethereal realm devoid of physical existence: our world, redeemed and healed; our world unioned with the ethereal Kingdom brought by the Second Coming of Christ, and the separateness that was established in the beginning and marred by the Fall shall vanish.

Darkness is not evil. God Himself created it. He called it good. Dualism is not Christian; it is Manichean and Gnostic, both theologies tightly related to each other and were condemned in Christianity's early history as being not just incompatible but its antithesis.

Do we honestly think there is an end to God? If God is infinite and the Light of light, then we cannot ever possibly grasp Him, and as further and further we go, we realize how much brighter and brighter it becomes. Thus, there is still darkness.

I would strongly suggest actually learning the history of Halloween; the real history, not that taught by the lies by many Fundamentalist groups, and what shall be found will be nothing bewitching.

I find it strange that in the 21st century we are still influenced by the nonsense of a medieval text that was widely regarded as dubious and controversial at the time of its publication. That is the Mallus Malleficorum.

Why was it considered dubious in its own time? Because even in the middle ages most intelligent people understood that the popular superstitions still clung to by the rural folk--who though Christian and Christianized still retained certain folk superstitions, such as the fear of witches--were just that, superstitions and had no place in Christendom. In fact prior to its publication there were both religious and secular laws in place that made "witch hunting" a criminal offense, one that carried the death sentence. The educated rulers of medieval Europe and clergy regarded belief in witches superstitious nonsense, and that believing that the devil had so much power as to be exercised through spells, incantations, and the like to be borderline blasphemous because it regarded the devil as being nearly godlike in power and thus able to challenge the power and authority of God.

And yet we live in an age of unprecedented knowledge and information and somehow old world superstitions that have as their source certain uneducated superstitious country folk still gets a free pass in many churches as somehow valid.

Today's "witchcraft" isn't the stuff a superstitious imagination dating from the middle ages. It's Neo-Paganism. As such its in the same category as any other non-Christian religion. Pagans don't have magic powers, they can't throw an eye of newt into a boiling kettle and make you fall asleep until an anonymous prince comes by and offers a kiss of true love. That just doesn't happen.

The worship and rituals offered and dedicated to false gods is what has always been, idolatry. It's not some categorically more heinous or diabolical thing, it's just people who have a different religious system than we do. And our response and behavior and attitude toward such people is to be the same as toward any other--we come with the love and grace of God in the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

Tins said:

This has been a great discussion...I am loving it...love learning stuff!

So what do you think about witches and decorating the house/car/whatever with witches?

Click to expand...

I think it's just a case of a misunderstanding gaining traction in culture.

PaladinValer said:

Darkness is not evil

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of darkness.

nigheandonn said:

I'm all too aware of that, trust me. There actually are some witches out there who wear the hats, although they're in the minority.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I just don't believe you. I'll need some sort of substantiation. And people dressed up in costumes for Hallowe'en or some nerd convention won't count.

-CryptoLutheran

PaladinValer said:

I would strongly suggest actually learning the history of Halloween; the real history, not that taught by the lies by many Fundamentalist groups, and what shall be found will be nothing bewitching.

Click to expand...

In linguistics, we have something called the etymological fallacy, which is the mistake of insisting or assuming a word's original meaning has any bearing on or is superior to/more important than its present meaning. The historical argument in favor of Halloween makes the same error. Modern-day Halloween undeniably has heavy occult and pagan symbolism.

ViaCrucis said:

Today's "witchcraft" isn't the stuff a superstitious imagination dating from the middle ages. It's Neo-Paganism. As such its in the same category as any other non-Christian religion. Pagans don't have magic powers, they can't throw an eye of newt into a boiling kettle and make you fall asleep until an anonymous prince comes by and offers a kiss of true love. That just doesn't happen.

Click to expand...

I personally know people who have successfully practiced witchcraft and ended up coming into contact with demons in the process. Witchcraft and Neopaganism often overlap, but they are not synonymous.

Tins said:

..

Click to expand...

So did you see post #72, above, about carving skulls on pumpkins, for the fall?

Tins said:

That slightly went over my head

Click to expand...

For now, perhaps. I suggest giving yourself more credit for desiring to learn instead of dwelling on not knowing now.

I probably should have said "because I have eternal life"...rather than "because I'm going to Heaven".

Click to expand...

All, even the wicked, will have eternal life. Just as the righteous shall experience God's Presence as heaven, so shall the wicked experience it as hell.

Truly, weeping and gnashing of teeth; experience what is rejecting...embracing hate but experiencing nothing but love...a pitiable and lamentable existence.

By living faith in Christ, we have a hope of salvation into an everlasting life of reconciliation with God as He brings the temporal into the eternal.

A lot of the theology of that kind of thing does go over my head. And everyone has a different opinion, naturally. It makes it very confusing to me at times. In a lot of ways, I am somewhat still a baby, even though I have been a believer since I was 6 and was raised in a Christian home.

Click to expand...

I can offer some excellent beginning materials if desired.

No, I don't think there is an end to God. Nor a beginning. It's too much for my mind to grasp though.

Click to expand...

A most astute conclusion!

They say darkness is the absence of light...and that darkness does not actually exist. What do you think of that statement?

Click to expand...

It is a very orthodox and ancient belief of Christianity.

Tins said:

Fair enough, I will give myself a little credit for wanting to learn...lol

I don't know if I want to delve into theology or not...I'm such a simple mind, I"m afraid I wouldn't grasp it!

Click to expand...

Then it is best to simply say "I believe in the Creed's theology and leave it at that".

Salvation, after all, is completely unintellectual.

Good point about the wicked having eternal life. Maybe I should give up on rephrasing that?

Click to expand...

While intellectualism isn't necessary, it is helpful when being asked questions and trying to explain what you believe and why.

So...if darkness is not the absence of light, what is it?

Click to expand...

That isn't what you said earlier; in fact, you said the exact opposite, and I agree to that, not to this statement.

Darkness is the absence of light.

PaladinValer said:

Yes it does because your claim is wrong.

Click to expand...

What claim are you talking about? Sorry, I'm not understanding you here.

PaladinValer said:

Yep. Observed witchcraft first hand actually, at a Wiccan esbat in Salem, Massachusetts, no less. And ViaCrucis said he has too, so your point is null.

Click to expand...

Wicca and witchcraft are related but not the same. I am talking about pure witchcraft for the sake of witchcraft, not a religion. A lot of Wiccans even object to being called witches.

So on what do you base your claim that witchcraft is just a bunch of nonsense with no substance?

I won't say much, except I feel that whatever is done, if it is not done for the wrong reasons, and the person truly loves the Lord, it is OK. I really do not think that a "true" Christian would go out of their way to wear or do things that honored Satan. It is what is in the heart that the Lord is concerned with.

nigheandonn said:

Wicca and witchcraft are related but not the same. I am talking about pure witchcraft for the sake of witchcraft, not a religion. A lot of Wiccans even object to being called witches.

Click to expand...

Witchcraft doesn't exist.

So on what do you base your claim that witchcraft is just a bunch of nonsense with no substance?

Click to expand...

The fact that your idea of "witchcraft" is nothing more than the conspiracy theory of medieval demonology nonsense.

Edit: Furthermore, the fact of the matter is, "witchcraft" has always been tied with religion. This fact alone also tells me that your views of what "witchcraft" is, is not based in reality but, again, really bad theology.

nigheandonn said:

Wicca and witchcraft are related but not the same. I am talking about pure witchcraft for the sake of witchcraft, not a religion. A lot of Wiccans even object to being called witches.

So on what do you base your claim that witchcraft is just a bunch of nonsense with no substance?

Click to expand...

Like Paladin said, whichcraft doesn't exist.however, I pose to you this question, since you seem to think "pure witchcraft" does exist, that you provide documented evidence that supports your claim about "pure witchcraft without religion" existing and maybe then we could answer differently.

I suspect you will not be able to however.

PaladinValer said:

Witchcraft doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

You cannot just make claims like that and expect someone to agree with them when you're not willing to offer your reasoning.

PaladinValer said:

The fact that your idea of "witchcraft" is nothing more than the conspiracy theory of medieval demonology nonsense. Edit: Furthermore, the fact of the matter is, "witchcraft" has always been tied with religion. This fact alone also tells me that your views of what "witchcraft" is, is not based in reality but, again, really bad theology.

Click to expand...

You're making a lot of assumptions without knowing anything about me. I know more about witchcraft than I even want to. Did you ever look into it personally? Did you ever almost practice it? Did you ever know witches personally, not just watch some Wiccans in Salem (where they probably put on quite a show)?

Again, support on witchcraft always being tied to religion, please? I know people who practiced it without any ties to a religion, so I'm going to need some pretty convincing evidence. It's not particularly common, no, but it absolutely does happen.

Please tell me the reasoning behind your statements. I'm very open to discussing this, but we can't get anywhere otherwise.

LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:

Like Paladin said, whichcraft doesn't exist.however, I pose to you this question, since you seem to think "pure witchcraft" does exist, that you provide documented evidence that supports your claim about "pure witchcraft without religion" existing and maybe then we could answer differently. I suspect you will not be able to however.

Click to expand...

What sort of evidence do you want? I'll see what I can find. You all have not given me a shred of evidence for your claims, either. I at least have personal experience behind mine. You have nothing and haven't even explained why you think witchcraft doesn't exist.

A question for both of you: if witchcraft is simply part of other religions and is not in any way effective or real or different from something like Hinduism or Daoism, why is it specifically warned against in the Bible, clearly separately from idolatry?

Another question: do you believe in literal demons?

nigheandonn said:

You cannot just make claims like that and expect someone to agree with them when you're not willing to offer your reasoning.

Click to expand...

Nothing substantial was offered, other than claimed expertise.

You're making a lot of assumptions without knowing anything about me. I know more about witchcraft than I even want to. Did you ever look into it personally? Did you ever almost practice it? Did you ever know witches personally, not just watch some Wiccans in Salem (where they probably put on quite a show)?

Click to expand...

Oh my...

You are not your beliefs. I posted against your beliefs, not against you. If people want to self-identify themselves with what they believe, that's on them, but it is both mentally unhealthy and quite irrational.

And your claims of knowing are no different than ViaCrucis' or mine. So substantiate them.

Again, support on witchcraft always being tied to religion, please? I know people who practiced it without any ties to a religion, so I'm going to need some pretty convincing evidence. It's not particularly common, no, but it absolutely does happen.

Click to expand...

Because I know the history of "witchcraft". Your ideas do not agree with the established history so it is dismissible.

Please tell me the reasoning behind your statements. I'm very open to discussing this, but we can't get anywhere otherwise.

Click to expand...

I question the authenticity of this statement, especially when nothing substantive other than claims of self-expertise. What are your credentials? I have a peer-reviewed degree in history; is that reciprocated on your end? And quite honestly, I want to see your academic sources that support your views.