rbq@iforgetmyname.lbp.harris.com (Robert Quattlebaum) (10/01/89)
[I commented on a previous posting: >[Of course Halloween is not derived from Satanism. It's derived from >a festival of the Church combined with earlier generations' fears of >evil creatures. ... Why are "ghost >stories" around a campfire still attractive? For me at least they >provide a little opening in a world that otherwise has all too little >room for anything mysterious or beyond the ordinary. Certainly one >would not want to do this in a way that promotes superstition, but I >worry about completely ridding the world of all fairy tales, ghost --clh] This depends, of course, on your perception of the word 'derived'. If it smells of evil, has been tainted by the world, or otherwise is not from God then I believe that it must be from Satan. After all, a scan of Romans (I forget the exact reference) will show you that whatever is not from faith is sin (pretty much an exact quote). --->no flame or insult intended---> I am really shocked that you find things such as ghost stories and Halloween well and good. The same goes for the other 'mysterious' things that you don't specifically name. As a Christian I can't go along with anything that seems to promote the dark side of life. The Holy Spirit provides PLENTY mystery and beyond-the-ordinary experiences for me. I'm not on any kick to rid the world of the things mentioned above, but I certainly will not promote their existence. This doesn't mean I'm a tied-up stick-in-the-mud who doesn't believe in having good fun, either. I find a very fulfilling life in Christ. But anyway, back to my original statement: Halloween is derived from Satanism. The origins of Halloween may have been 'church' doings, but this doesn't mean it isn't from Satan. Satan corrupts 'churches' as much as anything else. Those people should have used the name of Jesus Christ to ward off any evil spirits rather than start some bogus ritual. (As a clarification, Satanism doesn't have to mean the direct worship of Satan. This is MY opinion. Sorry if it caused any confusion) If the air of this posting seems inflammatory -- it was NOT intended that way. I just needed to expound on the idea of my original posting and clear up the apparent confusion about what *I* consider to be Satanism. By the way... Been in any Christian book stores lately? There are quite a few books out denouncing Halloween in a BIG way. ... and the reason most of the churches are offering alternatives to Halloween is NOT the safety factor - they want no part of an evil practice either. This is NOT an opinion -- I've been in contact with many such people who believe the same as I on this issue. This, of course, doesn't mean that I've got the correct answer to this issue :-) I know I could be wrong. R. Quattlebaum My employer doesn't CARE what I think. "God is love, not religion" So what does it matter what I say? gatech!galbp!iforgetmyname.LBP.HARRIS.COM!rbq
cargille@astroatc.uucp (Allan Cargille) (10/05/89)
In article <Sep.30.21.08.40.1989.3658@athos.rutgers.edu> rbq@iforgetmyname.lbp.harris.com (Robert Quattlebaum) writes: >This depends, of course, on your perception of the word 'derived'. If it >smells of evil, has been tainted by the world, or otherwise is not from >God then I believe that it must be from Satan. After all, a scan of Romans >(I forget the exact reference) will show you that whatever is not from >faith is sin (pretty much an exact quote). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hello all. I am starting to read this group again after a long departure largely because the newsgroup didn't seem to be productive. Not to pick on Robert, but as a step toward productive dialogue, discussion, and exchange of information I would like to ask for exact scriptural references in postings. Anybody can say, "doesn't it say somewhere in the bible that ..." I think it would be a healthy exercise both for investigating one's own faith more closely and being able to communicate it more effectively to others. I would even invite a standard from our moderator that all biblical quotes must contain specific references OR clearly attempt to be summary phrases of what God did in the broad sweeping scheme of things. Are we really so sloppy in our own faith? Or isn't it worth the effort of being exact when we are explaining some facet of Christianity? Just an idea. allan -- C. Allan Cargille "MadTown" (Madison), Wisconsin cargille@cs.wisc.edu `I give you a new commandment: love one another...' If not us, who? Let's build a better world. [There's a lot to be said for this advice. I often ask for clarification if I see something in a posting that I think people won't understand. However there are a number of reasons for not supplying exact references to the Bible. Many of readers are likely to post at work, with no concordance handy. So I think it's being pedantic to require references to passages that no one should have any trouble identifying. Furthermore, in some cases you want to refer to what isn't just a single passage, but to a general conclusion that one draws from a number of them. Of course you should be able to supply specific passages for this. But to require people to do so always seems like requiring mathematicians to do all proofs at the level of detailed used in high school geometry proofs. Nevertheless, I think you are right that people should where possible supply references. I have to say that I don't know quite what passage the article you quoted had in mind. By the way, it was fairly common for theologians, particularly in the first few centuries, to quote Scripture from memory, and get it only approximately right. Indeed Heb 2:6 introduces a quotation from Psalms 8:4-6 as follows: "It has been testified somewhere". And the quotation leaves out half of one of the verses. --clh]