Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: ProfessorDavey on October 31, 2016, 08:23:17 PM
-
Tonight is Halloween and all round my local area knots of excited small children (carefully watched by their parents) are enjoying getting dressed up as skeletons, witches, ghouls etc and knocking on their neighbours' doors in the hope of some sweets. Entirely innocent and good natured.
Yet our local CofE church deeply disapproves. They sent out a flier last week asking parents to send their children to an 'animal themed' party tonight instead - dress as your 'favourite animal'. All very odd as they've never extended a general invite to a party before. Clearly this is an attempt to get kids to turn their back on Halloween and do something that the church doesn't disapprove of, presumably because they consider Halloween somehow 'ungodly'.
Why so po-faced - can't they simply let kids enjoy halloween?
Just imagine the outcry from the Daily Mail types if non religious people tried to hi-jack Christmas events and turn them into an 'animal themed' party.
-
Brings to mind a well known quote of Bertrand Russell's.
The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others.
-
Brings to mind a well known quote of Bertrand Russell's.
Is 'the man in the street' familiar with this?
-
Well I bloody hate Halloween. Not for any religious reasons. Just for the sheer unadulterated, commercialised American-ness of it.
We've already got Bonfire Night as a homegrown tradition - do we have to have this faux, good neighbourly nonsense where I am supposed to supply sweets to unknown children.
Try that any other time of the year and see where it gets you.... >:(
-
Is 'the man in the street' familiar with this?
Looked out the front door - no man in street, but as soon as I see one I'll ask him.
So, were you familiar with this well-known quote?
-
Po faced Christians? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1TpgoqHWbE Stuff'em (from an un-po faced Christian who, though despising Americanisation, is nevertheless grateful that making turnip lanterns with the resultant bloodshed is a thing of the past....)
-
Tonight is Halloween and all round my local area knots of excited small children (carefully watched by their parents) are enjoying getting dressed up as skeletons, witches, ghouls etc and knocking on their neighbours' doors in the hope of some sweets. Entirely innocent and good natured.
Yet our local CofE church deeply disapproves. They sent out a flier last week asking parents to send their children to an 'animal themed' party tonight instead - dress as your 'favourite animal'. All very odd as they've never extended a general invite to a party before. Clearly this is an attempt to get kids to turn their back on Halloween and do something that the church doesn't disapprove of, presumably because they consider Halloween somehow 'ungodly'.
Why so po-faced - can't they simply let kids enjoy halloween?
Just imagine the outcry from the Daily Mail types if non religious people tried to hi-jack Christmas events and turn them into an 'animal themed' party.
Hi Prof!
Samhain blessings to you.
What really and truly amazes me is that while Samhain (October 31), is observed by the pagan community as a time to remember those who have passed on to the Summerlands and the old Celtic New Year, Hallowe'en is a Christian festival - All Hallows Eve - the Feast of All Souls!
The way it is celebrated by non-pagans, as you describe above, is another import of American rubbish. I really cannot see why the Yanks bastardised All Hallows in this way, but to see the Christian Churches wetting their collective knickers over a Christian festival has led to me allowing myself a glass of mead this year!
-
Oy! Not all Christians throw a hissy fit when Hallowe'en's mentioned (and that's from a Presbyterian)
-
Well I bloody hate Halloween. Not for any religious reasons. Just for the sheer unadulterated, commercialised American-ness of it.
We've already got Bonfire Night as a homegrown tradition - do we have to have this faux, good neighbourly nonsense where I am supposed to supply sweets to unknown children.
Try that any other time of the year and see where it gets you.... >:(
That's just good old fashioned bah-humbug.
Rather than the evangelist christian attempt to turn Halloween into a 'Jungle book-themed party - come dressed up as your favourite animal or Jungle Book character'. I mean wtf.
Sure much of the current Halloween is imported from the USA, but so what - kids love it. And it doesn't really detract from fireworks night - we'll be doing all that at the weekend.
-
That's just good old fashioned bah-humbug
Yep - works for me.
-
Oy! Not all Christians throw a hissy fit when Hallowe'en's mentioned (and that's from a Presbyterian)
I know and that's what makes it all the more po-faced amongst those that do.
Most of the Christians I know (including the missus) have no problem whatsoever enjoying Halloween and making sure the kids enjoy it too with pumpkin carving and a bit of trick or treat. It's just a few who seem to have a big issue, and can't bring themselves simply to ignore it - they can't help themselves, they have to try to sanitise it into an 'animal themed party'.
-
I've bought a big bag of sweets and turned the doorbell off. Happy Halloween.
Sarah Millican sums it up perfectly for me. ;)
-
Looked out the front door - no man in street, but as soon as I see one I'll ask him.
So, were you familiar with this well-known quote?
Alas no.......It really makes Bert sound like a party animal doesn't it.
-
The way it is celebrated by non-pagans, as you describe above, is another import of American rubbish. I really cannot see why the Yanks bastardised All Hallows in this way, but to see the Christian Churches wetting their collective knickers over a Christian festival has led to me allowing myself a glass of mead this year!
I know there has been a massive increase in the celebrating of Halloween, but it was far from unknown when I was a kid. It was more about telling scary ghost stories and ducking for apples than pumpkins and trick or treat, but the basic concept - scary stuff, was still there.
-
ProfDavey. I'm about to blaspheme, so I ask your forgiveness in advance. The link I posted to Burns' 'Tam oShanter' is set in the ruined Alloway Kirk. Presbytery (again, apologies for the language) sits in the kirk which replaced it - and both buildings were known to Burns. About a hundred yards away is te cottage where he was born. Tomorrow night when I try to fall asleep at Presbytery, the area will be festooned with turnip lanterns - including the Kirkyard - with the express encouragement of the Kirk. Getting back to the All souls thingy. We remember those who have died, celebrate them with a dram, and watch repeats of the Evil dead....kinda sacred, innit?
-
Yep - works for me.
Mutter, mutter, mutter ...
-
Mutter, mutter, mutter ...
See you're getting the hang of it now. ;)
-
See you're getting the hang of it now. ;)
Seems to have quietened down now - no trick or treaters for about an hour. Prime time (not that I was there for the first part) was 6-7:30.
We seem to have virtually no chocolate left.
Actually in recent years we have often given out fruit - not quite sure if this was to be healthy or simply because we'd run out of chocolate - we got some really funny looks, but always a polite thank you - that's the kind of area we live in!!!
-
At least some of what we have imported from the U.S. was part of what we exported in the form of 'guising'
http://caledonianmercury.com/2010/10/15/useful-scots-word-guising/0011286 ,
Or also more locally for me growing up, galoshans
http://galoshans.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-15520443?SThisFB
-
Dear Prof,
Yesterday in Church was all about Halloween, they even had a scary story for the kids, of course God got a mention in the story, you had to shout bang if he was mentioned, stamp your feet for thunder and shout whoosh if thunder was mention, even the Minister rattled on about all saints day and remembering the dead, the only time I saw a po face was when the collection plate went round ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Yesterday in Church was all about Halloween, they even had a scary story for the kids, of course God got a mention in the story, you had to shout bang if he was mentioned, stamp your feet for thunder and shout whoosh if thunder was mention, even the Minister rattled on about all saints day and remembering the dead, the only time I saw a po face was when the collection plate went round ::)
Gonnagle.
Never said it was all Christians - quite the reverse - see my response to Anchorman.
Just some.
-
Galoshans, NS? We haven't had that for a few years, unfortunately. I rember doing the rounds of the nearer farms in my early twenties with a few fellow reprobates from the adult part of the Youth Fellowship (Look - it's kirky - you don't get sense with the kirk) When I say 'remember'....er....well I remember the first couple of farms. The rest got more hazy as the night wore on.
-
Well I bloody hate Halloween. Not for any religious reasons. Just for the sheer unadulterated, commercialised American-ness of it.
We've already got Bonfire Night as a homegrown tradition - do we have to have this faux, good neighbourly nonsense where I am supposed to supply sweets to unknown children.
Try that any other time of the year and see where it gets you.... >:(
I feel a bit like that too, Trent. Probably less so than I used to. We don't have much in the way of door knocking where I live, probably because it's a main road. Maybe the side roads have more activity of that nature but, generally, Halloween hasn't taken off in a big way in my neck of the woods. However my view is that it is a bit of fun for kids and not sinister.
As for the church sending out fliers inviting kids to dress up as animals as an alternative to Halloween, all I can say is, "What utter prats". Either 'do' Halloween or do nothing.
-
My objection to Halloween is that it is a festival "invented" in England (I cannot say for the so-called "celtic" countries) by commercial organisations simply in order to make money. The major supermarkets stock their stores with cheap, rubbishy tat and make a big profit from it. No doubt, with all the safety controls on fireworks, Guy Fawkes night gives them no reward - so they max the opportunity for "pester power" spending driven by children.
I was very surprised, a few years ago, to exactly the same kind of crap merchandise being sold in exactly the same way in French supermarkets.
-
HH
Pretty sure WE in the UK 'imported' this from the USA !!!
-
for the church sending out fliers inviting kids to dress up as animals as an alternative to Halloween, all I can say is, "What utter prats". Either 'do' Halloween or do nothing.
But Halloween isn't Christian. Therefore the churches can't do it. Halloween is the day before All Hallows (All Saints) it was the day when evil spirits were abroad. On the stroke of midnight the holy day begins and the evil spirits disappear.
-
HH
Pretty sure WE in the UK 'imported' this from the USA !!!
So what?
How is this relevant to the large scale ripping off of children (and their parents) by cynical supermarkets?
We imported turkeys and potatoes and tobacco and syphilis from the New World. Some imports were good, some bad.
-
MMM
WELL How many more of your 'facts' are you getting INcorrect?
-
But Halloween isn't Christian. Therefore the churches can't do it. Halloween is the day before All Hallows (All Saints) it was the day when evil spirits were abroad. On the stroke of midnight the holy day begins and the evil spirits disappear.
I know Halloween is not Christian and that today is All Hallows Eve, HH. I used to go to a really lovely service at my church on All Saints day.
However do you seriously believe that evil spirits are abroad tonight any more than at any other time of the year?
Churches who take a stand, on religious grounds, against children having some fun on Halloween are advertising it by offering an alternative party, that's why I think they are being ridiculous. Better to do nothing. The kids aren't going to be attacked by evil spirits if they dress up in Harry Potter-type costumes and have pumpkins. Or if they are, it will happen at any other time.
What I don't like is the recent trend for people to dress up as road kill, serial killers or their victims, that is going too far imo, macabre in the extreme. Lots of people have said the same and I have a feeling the trend will die out. Frankenstein's monster, a few vampires and werewolves will suffice.
Churches like the one mentioned by Prof D in his OP are few and far between. Most make no comment at all on the subject because they see it for what it is, a bit of fun. I'm saying that as someone who doesn't like Halloween that much.
-
Yet our local CofE church deeply disapproves. They sent out a flier last week asking parents to send their children to an 'animal themed' party tonight instead - dress as your 'favourite animal'.
Sounds like that they're in to animalism! How very odd.
-
I know Halloween is not Christian and that today is All Hallows Eve, HH. I used to go to a really lovely service at my church on All Saints day.
However do you seriously believe that evil spirits are abroad tonight any more than at any other time of the year?
Brownie
I am merely stating the fairy tale element behind this commercial scam.
You appear to accept that evil spirits are no more than fairy tale but don't apply the same quality of thought when it comes to events inside churches.
-
The REAL question is, for me, whether evil spirits exist at all & what the heck is God doing allowing them 'out' at ANY time.
Can anyone prove they exist at all?
Nick
-
But Halloween isn't Christian. Therefore the churches can't do it. Halloween is the day before All Hallows (All Saints) it was the day when evil spirits were abroad. On the stroke of midnight the holy day begins and the evil spirits disappear.
But it is - or rather like so many festivals it is the Christianisation of an earlier festival. It is no less Christian than Christmas eve. That you indicate its etymology as linked intrinsically to another Christian festival (all hallows) rather proves the point.
-
HH
Pretty sure WE in the UK 'imported' this from the USA !!!
More complicated than that - Halloween is celtic christian (indeed even the name I believe is Scottish in derivation). It has always been celebrated in the UK - certainly was in my youth. For reasons I don't understand it became much more of a big thing in the USA, with derivation of traditions (so carving turnips in Scotland became pumpkins in the USA). We have recently imported back the USA version of Halloween to augment ours. Certainly it is a much bigger thing now than 40 years ago, but so what - it is a bit of fun. If people want to enjoy themselves on the last night in October and spend a bit on tat, so what.
-
Tonight is Halloween and all round my local area knots of excited small children (carefully watched by their parents) are enjoying getting dressed up as skeletons, witches, ghouls etc and knocking on their neighbours' doors in the hope of some sweets. Entirely innocent and good natured.
Yet our local CofE church deeply disapproves. They sent out a flier last week asking parents to send their children to an 'animal themed' party tonight instead - dress as your 'favourite animal'. All very odd as they've never extended a general invite to a party before. Clearly this is an attempt to get kids to turn their back on Halloween and do something that the church doesn't disapprove of, presumably because they consider Halloween somehow 'ungodly'.
Why so po-faced - can't they simply let kids enjoy halloween?
Just imagine the outcry from the Daily Mail types if non religious people tried to hi-jack Christmas events and turn them into an 'animal themed' party.
Not all Christians dislike Halloween. My 'born again' parents had no objection to my sisters and I pretending to be ghosts and witches on Halloween. I very much dislike the unpleasant American import, 'trick or treat', aspect of it, which we didn't have when I was a kid or when my children were young. I will not answer the door if kids come round begging for sweets.
-
I have no problem with people having fun. I don't have much of a problem with Halloween itself - I remember sporadic attempts at its celebration when I was a child.
My objection (and I may not be entirely rational about this) is that in its modern form it is a creation of the retail industry - possibly to recoup income lost as a result of the increased controls on the sale of fireworks. We have been manipulated into celebrating Halloween. Looking at the quality (low) and volume (high) of merchandise in supermarkets, Halloween now makes a significant contribution to the bottom line.
Evidence for this? Go to France - a society with no history of Halloween. Toussaints is a day when people remember their family members who have died. People visit cemeteries and lay flowers on tombs and graves. But over the past 20 years or so, starting in supermarkets, Halloween has become big business.
I was in Tesco yesterday and saw the piles of pumpkins being sold at knock down prices. I wonder how many of the pumpkins sold over the last view days have had any of their interiors used for food?
-
Sounds like that they're in to animalism! How very odd.
If I'd had kids, I'd have dressed them up as werewolves and vampire bats. They are, after all, animals.
-
If I'd had kids, I'd have dressed them up as werewolves and vampire bats. They are, after all, animals.
Humans are an animal species.
-
Humans are an animal species.
I think you missed Anchorman's point
-
Dear Floo,
Humans are an animal species.
Ah yes!! But we can change into Werewolves or Vampires, other animal species can't, or maybe they can, can a dolphin change into a wolf, what about a Hamster changing into a Vampire, blood sucking Hamsters :o
But then we have real horror creatures that man can turn into, Politicians, poor creatures whose fate it is to wander the earth unable to answer a straight question! Tis true, they actually go to school to learn to avoid questions.
https://www.sundaypost.com/news/political-news/mhairi-black-admits-mps-are-taught-to-avoid-answering-questions/
Gonnagle.
-
Well it's all over for another year now and I don't suppose we are any the worse for it. No-one came here trick or treating.
Pumpkin soup is apparently really good! I've never made it before but am going out this morning and if I see some leftover pumpkin in the supermarket (which is most likely), I might give it a go.
It's interesting how Halloween is celebrated in different parts of the country. Floo said they did it in Guernsey when she was a child. Then there are parts of Scotland. I once heard it started off here in East Anglia. Trick or treating has never been a big thing where I live but some kids had themed parties, eg the cubs, and if someone's birthday was around that time.
-
My objection to Halloween, especially trick or treating, is that it's a horrible American import.
-
My objection to Halloween, especially trick or treating, is that it's a horrible American import.
That is a moan many of us have about the event!
-
My objection to Halloween, especially trick or treating, is that it's a horrible American import.
A number of people have made that pout but I think it is much more complicated than that.
I simply isn't the case that no-one celebrated Halloween until the recent import of an american approach. It isn't like Thanksgiving (for example) which is an exclusively US thing and never part of our culture. Halloween has always been part of our culture - when I was a kid it was celebrated and marked. The difference is that it has become much more prominent and we have adopted certain elements that we might perceive as american, but are actually closely linked to our own more UK-centric approach. So others have mentioned customs that are really very similar to trick or treat and pumpkin carving from UK custom.
So rather than a lock, stock and barrel import of something alien to our culture I think we have adopted the USA customs because they align with our own less prominent customs of celebrating Halloween from years ago. And that includes trick or treat, although we tended not to use the term.
So sure the term trick or treat is american, but the custom of getting dressed up and knocking on doors looking for 'rewards' is way older than the modern USA trick or treat. Indeed the origins are probably British, albeit under the name guising (see above) or souling.
-
I don't mind Halloween celebration that much, it's a bit of fun, all I do mind about it is it's yet more Americanisation of our unique little old UK.
I'm not anti American, I just wish they would keep their ideas of what they think is culture to themselves, why do we have to follow them when it would be so much better for them if it was visa versa?
ippy
-
I don't mind Halloween celebration that much, it's a bit of fun, all I do mind about it is it's yet more Americanisation of our unique little old UK.
I'm not anti American, I just wish they would keep their ideas of what they think is culture to themselves, why do we have to follow them when it would be so much better for them if it was visa versa?
ippy
How would you suggest that they keep those things to themselves?
Then in the very same sentence you want them to adopt our ideas because it would be better for them. How patronising is that?
Ps, we don't have to follow them, you do know that, don't you?
-
I don't mind Halloween celebration that much, it's a bit of fun, all I do mind about it is it's yet more Americanisation of our unique little old UK.
I'm not anti American, I just wish they would keep their ideas of what they think is culture to themselves, why do we have to follow them when it would be so much better for them if it was visa versa?
ippy
What you see as the American idea of Halloween is merely a mirror reflected back onto older British cultural traditions. As I've already said the American Trick or Treat is really just the older British guising or souling renamed and updated. Likewise carving pumpkins which dates back to the Jack-o-lanterns and as a Halloween custom was seen in both England and Ireland well before America. The difference being the vegetable (or is it a fruit). The Americans adopted the pumpkin whereas it used to be a turnip more often in Britain. But again this is merely an updating of a older and non-american culture rather than an entirely new cultural tradition somehow imposed on Britain.
But Seb Toe is also correct - you can't impose a new culture unless people want to adopt that culture. In the case of Halloween it has always been in our culture, in recent years we have merely brought it back to the fore. That's entirely different to perhaps trying to get the British to adopt Thanksgiving, and entirely alien custom - however much marketing push there was I doubt that would be anything other than entirely niche.
-
Halloween has come and gone - next up is the infernal monotony of Christmas, which doesn't even have the benefit that Halloween has of being over in a day.
-
Halloween has come and gone - next up is the infernal monotony of Christmas, which doesn't even have the benefit that Halloween has of being over in a day.
Oh I'm liking you more and more Gordon. Prof D will be along shortly to tell you that you are a whingeing misery guts. I agree. Let's have more of it. Play on drab fiddle, play on. ;)
-
Oh I'm liking you more and more Gordon. Prof D will be along shortly to tell you that you are a whingeing misery guts. I agree. Let's have more of it. Play on drab fiddle, play on. ;)
I'm not in the 'humbug' camp, Trent - I can cope with and even moderately enjoy the silliness aspects for a few days: but it seems to start so early a drag on relentlessly for weeks, and I simply get bored with it long before the due date.
In addition, although since retirement every day is a holiday, in my working days I'd far rather have had the holiday time when there was at least a chance the sun might shine.
-
Dear Gordon,
Haud the bus, whit aboot bonny night ( have the damn yankees stolen that from us ) but then elf and tufty have taken most of the fun out of that, you can't have a bonny oot on the backcourt anymore, once upon a time Misses Mcgilicuddy knew exactly where her brand new wooden garden fencing had gone the day after bonny night ( sorry for our English cousins, Guy Fawkes night, some Tim trying to blow up our houses of Parliament, well that's the story I grew up with ).
A rich night where yer dug had to be kept indoors, a night for knowing how to siphon petrol out of a car ( just to get yer bonny going :P ) a night where all the parents ( usually male ) knew exactly how to stack a fifteen foot bonny, a night when every kid had a box of bangers in their back pocket, a night when the kids dared you to hold the banger fizzing away until the very last minute, a night when yer Mammy feed all the kids in the street with her home made cakes :'( :'( a night when every fireman knew he was onto overtime.
Please to remember the fifth of November, lightup the sky with standard fireworks posters of a certain age will remember that advert, Halloween was for the weans, bonny night was for the hooligan of all ages.
Gonnagle.
-
Thanks for that Gonnagle and for any atheists here......Never fool with fireworks......they can cause serious burns.
-
Personally, I can do without Guy Fawkes night - which really has nothing to do with Scotland, since we were separate when he tried a vast redocaration in Westminster, and, to be honest, we didn't really miss James VI. I simply loath fireworks. If they were confined to one day in one place, fine - but idiots letting the damn things off at night for weeks beforehand means that I'm effectively confined to quarters for two weeks before the fifth - the noise seriously disorients me and affects my mobility. Heaven knows how some of my guide dog owning friends cope.
-
Tonight is Halloween and all round my local area knots of excited small children (carefully watched by their parents) are enjoying getting dressed up as skeletons, witches, ghouls etc and knocking on their neighbours' doors in the hope of some sweets. Entirely innocent and good natured.
Yet our local CofE church deeply disapproves. They sent out a flier last week asking parents to send their children to an 'animal themed' party tonight instead - dress as your 'favourite animal'. All very odd as they've never extended a general invite to a party before. Clearly this is an attempt to get kids to turn their back on Halloween and do something that the church doesn't disapprove of, presumably because they consider Halloween somehow 'ungodly'.
Why so po-faced - can't they simply let kids enjoy halloween?
Just imagine the outcry from the Daily Mail types if non religious people tried to hi-jack Christmas events and turn them into an 'animal themed' party.
PD, I think one reason why the church has chosen to do this is because a number of parents - both Christians and non-Christians - have complained over the years about the treatment of certain parts of their communities by young people over the Hallowe'en period - such a houses being egged, unpleasant things being shoved through front door letter boxes, abuse being hurled at them - originally by teenagers, but increasingly being copied by younger children - generally not with parents or adults.
-
Well I bloody hate Halloween. Not for any religious reasons. Just for the sheer unadulterated, commercialised American-ness of it.
We've already got Bonfire Night as a homegrown tradition - do we have to have this faux, good neighbourly nonsense where I am supposed to supply sweets to unknown children.
Try that any other time of the year and see where it gets you.... >:(
Trent, Hallowe'en is very much a home-grown (or at least a European-grown) festival. Even the pumpkins is a European practice. The modern practice of trick or treating is an American tradition, but the frightening get-ups and pumpkin lights have been around since long before 'commercial American-ness'. It was believed that they would ward off the evil spirits that were thought to do the rounds at Hallowe'en (or All Hallows Eve). All Hallows Day (today - Tuesday) was and is the day that the church remember those who died in the faith ('hallows' is another word for 'saint' - hallows (n.) in All-Hallows, a survival of hallow in the noun sense of "holy personage, saint," attested from Old English haligra but little used after c. 1500. Hallowmas "All-saints" is first attested late 14c.
Dictionary.com): the evening before was thought to be the day that the evil spirits were all allowed to do their worst.
-
Dear Jim,
If they were confined to one day in one place, fine
I am with you there old son, one day to celebrate, if only we could do the same for Christmas, I like Christmas it is the other 364 days we use to build up to it I hate.
Gonnagle.
-
Halloween has come and gone - next up is the infernal monotony of Christmas, which doesn't even have the benefit that Halloween has of being over in a day.
And what 'over in a day' does the 5 to 8 week run-up to Hallowe'en count as, Gordon? We had Hallowe'en stuff in the shops back in late August.
-
And what 'over in a day' does the 5 to 8 week run-up to Hallowe'en count as, Gordon? We had Hallowe'en stuff in the shops back in late August.
It seems to be less 'in your face' than Xmas I suppose: there are no holidays involved and it tends to involve mostly just the younger kids - this year my 14 year old grandson wanted nothing to do with it whereas his 10 year old sister did. In addition, whereas from mid-December onwards the local Tesco plays Xmas music until it sickens, they don't play the likes of 'Monster Mash' or 'Werewolves of London' relentlessly at Halloween.
Thus Xmas is unavoidably intrusive whereas Halloween isn't.
-
But it is - or rather like so many festivals it is the Christianisation of an earlier festival. It is no less Christian than Christmas eve. That you indicate its etymology as linked intrinsically to another Christian festival (all hallows) rather proves the point.
But unlike Christmas eve, it actually detracts from the real Christian festival of All Saints. How many Halloweeners actually know that they are celebrating the eve of All Saints day?
-
But unlike Christmas eve, it actually detracts from the real Christian festival of All Saints. How many Halloweeners actually know that they are celebrating the eve of All Saints day?
Wrong way of looking at it Alan.
Halloween is the event - sure a few hard core Christians celebrate All Saints, but for the general population Halloween is the celebration and All Saints an irrelevance. Most people who enjoy Halloween aren't practicing Christians so their celebration on 31st October doesn't detract from anything of relevance to them.
Last night I saw all sorts of people out on the streets enjoying Halloween - today, are they all off celebrating All Saints day - nope.
-
Very few, I would think, Alan, but very few know much about Easter. I've heard people say that Good Friday is Easter and as for "Easter Saturday", ie the day before Easter, it's commonly called that now. Let's face it, most people aren't practicing Christians so why should they know?
However I am pretty sure kids who enjoy Halloween aren't in touch with evil spirits, they are just having some fun with a Potter-like bit of fantasy.
I do understand what Hope says about people objecting to menacing youngsters wearing horrible masks, some of whom demand money and commit petty vandalism when they go out trick or treating. That's pretty nasty, if I lived somewhere like that I wouldn't answer the door. Most don't behave badly though and small children are accompanied by adults or older siblings.
-
It seems to be less 'in your face' than Xmas I suppose: there are no holidays involved and it tends to involve mostly just the younger kids - this year my 14 year old grandson wanted nothing to do with it whereas his 10 year old sister did. In addition, whereas from mid-December onwards the local Tesco plays Xmas music until it sickens, they don't play the likes of 'Monster Mash' or 'Werewolves of London' relentlessly at Halloween.
Thus Xmas is unavoidably intrusive whereas Halloween isn't.
Whilst I would agree with you on the aspects of the commercialisation of Christmas, it has a lot to do with the way in which society has taken it over as 'a time for the family', as opposed to a religious celebration. Ironically, since celebrating Christmas had to be done largely behind closed doors in Nepal till the mid-90s, it was those 7 Christmases that we spent in Nepal that I have enjoyed most - no commercial prelude, no Christmas muzak in shops, .... We just got on and celebrated it for what is - a birthday celebration; possibly not on the date it should have been, but then this happens in a number of occasions in a number or ways.
-
Whilst I would agree with you on the aspects of the commercialisation of Christmas, it has a lot to do with the way in which society has taken it over as 'a time for the family', as opposed to a religious celebration.
Muddled thinking.
Why should seeing Christmas as 'a time for the family' equate with commercialisation. Surely it would be the reverse - all you need to be is with your family. And I think that is the crux of the matter, sure we go overboard on buying stuff but Christmas isn't Christmas (however much food, drink and presents we buy) without the people we love around us.
So loads of commercial stuff but no-one we love = rubbish Christmas
Being with people we love but not much commercial stuff = good Christmas
Add some additional good cheer in the form of food, drink and presents to being with people we love = better still
But the key isn't the commercial stuff, but the people.
Oh and for most people the religious stuff is completely irrelevant, except as cultural mood music.
-
Muddled thinking.
Why should seeing Christmas as 'a time for the family' equate with commercialisation. Surely it would be the reverse - all you need to be is with your family. And I think that is the crux of the matter, sure we go overboard on buying stuff but Christmas isn't Christmas (however much food, drink and presents we buy) without the people we love around us.
But that may be the case for you; for many, it is all about how drunk they can get, how much they can spend on presents so as to 'buy' love. The very fact that the festival has become all about 'us', be that individually or as family, means that it becomes a means of impressing others.
So loads of commercial stuff but no-one we love = rubbish Christmas
Being with people we love but not much commercial stuff = good Christmas
Add some additional good cheer in the form of food,drink and presents to being with people with love = better still
Sadly,I've worked with folk for whom none of these equations have worked; and have rather ended up with division, alienation, the splitting of families, etc. Even more sadly, some of those have been seemingly strong Christian families.
But the key isn't the commercial stuff, but the people.
If the key was the people, the concentration wouldn't be so much on stuff.
-
Last night I saw all sorts of people out on the streets enjoying Halloween - today, are they all off celebrating All Saints day - nope.
Sounds like a degree of cultural poverty, to me ;)
-
I like the inclusiveness of Christmas and approve of it being a 'time for the family' as well as being a religious festival. All very rose tinted of course because more families have rows at Christmas than any time of year, plus there is great loneliness at Christmas for those who have no-one*. Still it can be a really nice, cosy time, especially with youngsters.
*(If I was alone at Christmas I would go to bed for a lot of the time and thoroughly enjoy eating, reading, watching telly when I wanted and relishing my solitude but I am an unsociable bu**er.)
-
Wrong way of looking at it Alan.
Halloween is the event - sure a few hard core Christians celebrate All Saints, but for the general population Halloween is the celebration and All Saints an irrelevance. Most people who enjoy Halloween aren't practicing Christians so their celebration on 31st October doesn't detract from anything of relevance to them.
Last night I saw all sorts of people out on the streets enjoying Halloween - today, are they all off celebrating All Saints day - nope.
I agree it is a sign of our increasingly secular society, as are the egg throwers who have scared off most of the little ones in our area.
-
But unlike Christmas eve, it actually detracts from the real Christian festival of All Saints. How many Halloweeners actually know that they are celebrating the eve of All Saints day?
You're not the "serious burns" that Vlad mentioned a few short posts back?
Halloweeners are celebrating Halloween.
It's as simple as that.
-
By the way, we never called going out on Halloween "Trick or Treat"
For us, it was "guising".
We dressed up, knocked on doors and had to sing a song/recite a poem in return for sweets or fruit.
-
That sounds good, Khatru. On the odd occasion when it happened here, and the last was about four years ago, the children who knocked did the same. They were really cute, one little girl dressed up had an older sister with her, who was about fourteen, who explained to me very carefully that she was only there because her mum had told her to accompany her little sister. Then there was a really sweet tiny boy with a couple of other kids, accompanied by dad. I liked all and gave them some fruit and chocolate biscuits which delighted them all. I suppose I might have given them a little bit of money had I not had anything edible that was appropriate but the idea of tall 'axe murderers' with boxes of eggs, demanding cash, would put me right off.
-
I agree it is a sign of our increasingly secular society
And given that Halloween has origins way earlier than Christianity I think your complaint is that it isn't Christian anymore - what demonstrates a lack of perspective.
as are the egg throwers who have scared off most of the little ones in our area.
And have you checked that the 'egg throwers' you claim to exist in your area are 'secular' - have you asked them. How do you know they aren't Christians? You don't no doubt.
And I have no interest in defending the tiny minority who may get up to no good on Halloween (and certainly don't presume to know their religious beliefs). But your claims don't resonate with my area. We have no trouble whatsoever - Halloween actually has developed in to a rather lovely community activity with families and groups of children enjoying going round to their neighbours (often having checked in advance that its OK) and the neighbours enjoying seeing them out and giving tiny rewards. There is also a well respected protocol - if you have Halloween decorations or a lit pumpkin out, please knock, if not please move on to the next house.
-
if you have Halloween decorations or a lit pumpkin out, please knock, if not please move on to the next house.
Yes to be even handed that happens where we live to. (That's just to balance out my still in my mind justified grumpiness ;) )
-
I recall, back in my Lincolnshire childhood, a night called "Mischievous Night" just before Guy Fawkes Night. I do not recall ever taking part or being allowed to part, but it involved unsociable behaviour - knocking on doors and then running away, and so forth. Whether this was Halloween or not I cannot remember.
I hear that there was urban racing in Leeds and Birmingham (and probably other places, too) by large numbers of motorcyclists. Quite dangerous.
Whilst I would agree with you on the aspects of the commercialisation of Christmas, it has a lot to do with the way in which society has taken it over as 'a time for the family', as opposed to a religious celebration.
I think that the real situation here is that Christians have taken over the feast of Saturnalia and imposed religious meaning onto it. No one knows when Jesus was born - if he ever existed.
-
Sounds like a degree of cultural poverty, to me ;)
Sound more like a degree of 'cultural fascism' from you.
In effect you are implying that you are the arbiter of what is culturally relevant and important and that if others don't agree with you then they are suffering from cultural poverty. Rather arrogant I'm sure you would agree.
Perhaps you want to ask yourself the following about who is at 'fault' here in relation to the cultural relevance of All Saints day. Is it those who fail to see the cultural relevance and resonance of All Saints day and therefore choose not to mark it, but do see the relevance and resonance of Halloween and therefore for choose to mark it. Alternatively is it the religious organisations who have failed to make the case for the relevance of All Saints day with any kind of success, such that the vast majority of people in the UK (including I would argue many if not most active Christians) choose not to mark it as they fail to be swayed by the arguments of its relevance.
I'd suggest the latter.
-
The very fact that the festival has become all about 'us' ...
Well if by 'us' you mean those most close and dear to us, those that we love as they are our family and closest friend, then count me in. To me the very essence of Christmas is that it is a time to share with those we love the very most with the normal pressures of busy lives stripped away for a few precious days.
If that is somehow bad then I really do think you have your moral compass is wired badly wrong.
-
Personally, I can do without Guy Fawkes night - which really has nothing to do with Scotland, since we were separate when he tried a vast redocaration in Westminster, and, to be honest, we didn't really miss James VI. I simply loath fireworks. If they were confined to one day in one place, fine - but idiots letting the damn things off at night for weeks beforehand means that I'm effectively confined to quarters for two weeks before the fifth - the noise seriously disorients me and affects my mobility. Heaven knows how some of my guide dog owning friends cope.
I had you down as a "guy Fawkes" supporter :o
I could just see the David Cameron " guy" sat on top the bonfire ;D
;D
-
for many, it is all about how drunk they can get
Sure there is a lot of drinking that goes on over Christmas, and by the way just as prevalent in Christian households as non-Christian ones.
But I think the worst excesses tend to be in the run up - the debouched office Christmas party type scenarios. And of course those aren't the situations where we are sharing with our closest and most loved - it is an opportunity to let off steam with work colleagues and the notion that it is in the run up to Christmas is pretty well irrelevant - have you seen works outings in the hospitality enclosure at Royal Ascot in June? Identical drunken behaviour.
And I'm sure you are aware of the time honoured traditions of the actively religious at Christmas - namely to go to the pub on Christmas Eve, get blind drunk and then roll into midnight mass completely intoxicated. Not my idea of a fun Christmas Eve on any count.
-
Tonight is Halloween and all round my local area knots of excited small children (carefully watched by their parents) are enjoying getting dressed up as skeletons, witches, ghouls etc and knocking on their neighbours' doors in the hope of some sweets. Entirely innocent and good natured.
Yet our local CofE church deeply disapproves. They sent out a flier last week asking parents to send their children to an 'animal themed' party tonight instead - dress as your 'favourite animal'. All very odd as they've never extended a general invite to a party before. Clearly this is an attempt to get kids to turn their back on Halloween and do something that the church doesn't disapprove of, presumably because they consider Halloween somehow 'ungodly'.
Why so po-faced - can't they simply let kids enjoy halloween?
Just imagine the outcry from the Daily Mail types if non religious people tried to hi-jack Christmas events and turn them into an 'animal themed' party.
They are probably the same people that disapprove of the Harry Potter books because they think they encourage people to "dabble in the occult."
Some Vicar objected to a local wassailing group when I lived in Somerset.
It all leads to dabbling in the occult, according to some Christians.
(At Carhampton, near Minehead, the Apple Orchard Wassailing is held on the old Twelfth Night (17 January) as a ritual to ask God for a good apple harvest. The villagers form a circle around the largest apple tree, hang pieces of toast soaked in cider in the branches for the robins, who represent the 'good spirits' of the tree. A shotgun is fired overhead to scare away evil spirits and the group sings, the following being the last verse,
Old Apple tree, old apple tree;
We've come to wassail thee;
To bear and to bow apples enow;
Hats full, caps full, three bushel bags full;
Barn floors full and a little heap under the stairs.[4])
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassail
The media hunt these objectors out when news is a bit scarce.
Some more enlightened vicars join in.
http://www.marlboroughnewsonline.co.uk/features/people/features/environment/1367-hundreds-turn-out-to-wassail-marlborough-s-apple-trees
-
They are probably the same people that disapprove of the Harry Potter books because they think they encourage people to "dabble in the occult."
Some Vicar objected to a local wassailing group when I lived in Somerset.
It all leads to dabbling in the occult, according to some Christians.
(At Carhampton, near Minehead, the Apple Orchard Wassailing is held on the old Twelfth Night (17 January) as a ritual to ask God for a good apple harvest. The villagers form a circle around the largest apple tree, hang pieces of toast soaked in cider in the branches for the robins, who represent the 'good spirits' of the tree. A shotgun is fired overhead to scare away evil spirits and the group sings, the following being the last verse,
Old Apple tree, old apple tree;
We've come to wassail thee;
To bear and to bow apples enow;
Hats full, caps full, three bushel bags full;
Barn floors full and a little heap under the stairs.[4])
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassail
The media hunt these objectors out when news is a bit scarce.
I like these old traditions and customs, and they should be preserved. But to my mind the only way to do that is to detach them, in reality, from their serious original meaning while retaining some updated relevance. So I'd be delighted to sing that verse while wassailing, but I don't think I'd ever really believe that I'm tapping into the 'good spirits'. And if I felt that I was really expected to do so, I'd run a mile. The relevance is both cultural and also nodding to a more universal truth about the subtle changing of the seasons and the promise of spring and summer during the dark days of January.
So also with bonfire night. The original meaning is undeniably sectarian and anti-catholic, and I'm sure many of us would feel deeply uncomfortable about being part of anything which really retained that overt sentiment (not least me). But it has cultural traction and also has evolved to become more about a slightly dangerous (albeit carefully managed) and anarchic movement that attaches itself to the latest establishment figures to be ridiculed - hence the relatively new tradition of seeing effigies of political figures on the bonfire - anyone for Trump this year? Also there is, again, a resonance with the time of year. We change the clocks and suddenly it is dark early - early Nov is often when we really begin to feel a touch of chill in the weather. To light up that dark sky with fireworks and to wrap up warm out in the evening for the first time of the year while thinking of retiring to a warm house (or hostelry) afterwards reminds us of some of the joys of the coming season.
-
They are probably the same people that disapprove of the Harry Potter books because they think they encourage people to "dabble in the occult."
'Dabbling with the occult', is what some Christians do when messing around with the unpleasant 'exorcism' hocus pocus, 'speaking in tongues' gobbledegook, or pretending to be 'healers'!
-
They are probably the same people that disapprove of the Harry Potter books because they think they encourage people to "dabble in the occult."
'Dabbling with the occult', is what some Christians do when messing around with the unpleasant 'exorcism' hocus pocus, 'speaking in tongues' gobbledegook, or pretending to be 'healers'!
Unfortunately they don't see it the same way Floo.
For some, if you do it in Jesus name and you do it under church supervision, it's ok.
My ordained friend believes in healing, within the church, but always regarded my spiritualist friend ( who considered herself a faith healer) as having her powers coming from the devil.
::)
Somehow, laying on of hands in a c of e setting and a spiritualist claiming to be a faith healer are seen as different. ( even when the spiritualist believes in Jesus).
So exorcism, speaking in tongues, healing is all seen to be ok because that's perceived as the Holy Spirit, everything else is often seen as a poor copy of the HS, therefore Satanic.
Satan trying to trick people, and all that.
-
Unfortunately they don't see it the same way Floo.
For some, if you do it in Jesus name and you do it under church supervision, it's ok.
My ordained friend believes in healing, within the church, but always regarded my spiritualist friend ( who considered herself a faith healer) as having her powers coming from the devil.
::)
Somehow, laying on of hands in a c of e setting and a spiritualist claiming to be a faith healer are seen as different. ( even when the spiritualist believes in Jesus).
So exorcism, speaking in tongues, healing is all seen to be ok because that's perceived as the Holy Spirit, everything else is often seen as a poor copy of the HS, therefore Satanic.
Satan trying to trick people, and all that.
Satan is a very convenient scapegoat, poor darling!
-
Satan is a very convenient scapegoat, poor darling!
one thing I find very odd is when Christians imply that atheists are somehow satanists. This is bizarre as atheists believe no more in the devil than they do in god.
-
'Dabbling with the occult', is what some Christians do when messing around with the unpleasant 'exorcism' hocus pocus, 'speaking in tongues' gobbledegook, or pretending to be 'healers'!
I have some friends who moved into a house and then discovered that an early owner had committed suicide in the garden. All rather distressing and unpleasant. They (or rather the husband) decided to get an exorcism performed which astonished me as I genuinely though that was the sort of thing that really only happened in films.
Clearly didn't work as they moved about a year later!!!
-
one thing I find very odd is when Christians imply that atheists are somehow satanists. This is bizarre as atheists believe no more in the devil than they do in god.
True.
-
I have some friends who moved into a house and then discovered that an early owner had committed suicide in the garden. All rather distressing and unpleasant. They (or rather the husband) decided to get an exorcism performed which astonished me as I genuinely though that was the sort of thing that really only happened in films.
Clearly didn't work as they moved about a year later!!!
Sadly exorcisms are quite common. I believe children, especially in the US, have died because of this unpleasant nonsense! >:( Some nutter wanted to perform an exorcism on our previous property, naturally we politely told them where to go! It should be illegal to perform exorcisms on children and the vulnerable.
-
They are probably the same people that disapprove of the Harry Potter books because they think they encourage people to "dabble in the occult."
'Dabbling with the occult', is what some Christians do when messing around with the unpleasant 'exorcism' hocus pocus, 'speaking in tongues' gobbledegook, or pretending to be 'healers'!
I speak in tongues - I absolutely do NOT 'dabble in the occult'.
You've been told that before.
-
I speak in tongues - I absolutely do NOT 'dabble in the occult'.
You've been told that before.
I believe the tongues gobbledegook is the same side of the coin, it is all nonsense.
-
I believe the tongues gobbledegook is the same side of the coin, it is all nonsense.
You accused those who use tongues of dabbling in the occult.
By implication, that means me.
I simply point out your error - or can you find evidence to back up the accusation, please?
-
You accused those who use tongues of dabbling in the occult.
By implication, that means me.
I simply point out your error - or can you find evidence to back up the accusation, please?
I presume you believe that 'speaking in tongues' is a 'supernatural' gift from your version of god? If so, what is the difference between that and witchcraft or any other 'supernatural' practise? Of course I don't believe the supernatural exists, and that everything has a natural explanation.
-
I presume you believe that 'speaking in tongues' is a 'supernatural' gift from your version of god? If so, what is the difference between that and witchcraft or any other 'supernatural' practise? Of course I don't believe the supernatural exists, and that everything has a natural explanation.
So, that'll be a 'no' then?
You can't find evidence to back up yor accusation?
Fairy nuff.
-
So, that'll be a 'no' then?
You can't find evidence to back up yor accusation?
Fairy nuff.
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe your version of god encourages you to 'speak in tongues'?
-
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe your version of god encourages you to 'speak in tongues'?
That's evading the accusation you made.
Please substantiate it with evidence, then I'll happily answer your question.
-
That's evading the accusation you made.
Please substantiate it with evidence, then I'll happily answer your question.
I keep asking what is the difference between the occult and the 'supernatural' things some Christians claim to get up to like speaking in tongues, exorcism, and healing, it all seems to be much of a muchness to me. You seem to be evading the question.
-
I keep asking what is the difference between the occult and the 'supernatural' things some Christians claim to get up to like speaking in tongues, exorcism, and healing, it all seems to be much of a muchness to me. You seem to be evading the question.
[/quote
Sorry, you are dodging the fact that you made an accusation which you cannot substantiate.
-
I keep asking what is the difference between the occult and the 'supernatural' things some Christians claim to get up to like speaking in tongues, exorcism, and healing, it all seems to be much of a muchness to me. You seem to be evading the question.
[/quote
Sorry, you are dodging the fact that you made an accusation which you cannot substantiate.
Oh for pity's sake it is you who are refusing to answer my question, because you can't substantiate your faith!
-
Anchorman:
"Quote from: Floo on Today at 02:05:31 PM
I believe the tongues gobbledegook is the same side of the coin, it is all nonsense.
You accused those who use tongues of dabbling in the occult.
By implication, that means me.
I simply point out your error - or can you find evidence to back up the accusation, please?"
Floo, as an impartial observer it looks to me as though Anchorman asked the first question. So if you answer that, he will answer your question.
(If someone started a thread devoted to "tongues", I'm sure quite a few of us would contribute. No, I won't start the thread, I always feel nervous about doing that, but I have had some experience of the phenomena.)
(Edited for grammah)
-
Brownie: I respect floo as a poster, but I've yet to see her coming up with any evidence to substantiate her point. I realise she had a truly terrible experience of what seemed to be an exclusive fundamentalist church in her childhood, but I'm trying to let her see that not all charismatic churches are as abominable as the one she was forced to attend, niether are mainstream Christians who happen to be charismatic to a degree in any way comparable.
-
Yes Anchor, you are right.
I've resurrected an old thread about speaking in tongues, a subject which is of interest to quite a lot of posters and generate strong opinions.
-
I am not sure what Anchorman wants me to say. I am asking what is the difference between some of the things attributed to so called 'spirit filled' Christians, and those who practise the occult?
-
and he asked you to substantiate your claim that tongues and the occult were the same (or something like that).
I've resurrected the Speaking in Tongues thread.
-
and he asked you to substantiate your claim that tongues and the occult were the same (or something like that).
I've resurrected the Speaking in Tongues thread.
Because I cannot see any difference that is why, how many different ways do I have to put it?
-
I keep asking what is the difference between the occult and the 'supernatural' things some Christians claim to get up to like speaking in tongues, exorcism, and healing, it all seems to be much of a muchness to me. You seem to be evading the question.
OK, Floo, perhaps the greatest difference between the occult and the 'supernatural' things you list is that the former is associated with Satan, whilst the others are associated with God. Since these two beings are at the opposite ends of the good/bad spectrum, the things associated with them must also be very different.
-
OK, Floo, perhaps the greatest difference between the occult and the 'supernatural' things you list is that the former is associated with Satan, whilst the others are associated with God. Since these two beings are at the opposite ends of the good/bad spectrum, the things associated with them must also be very different.
But that's only relevant form your perspective - from a non religious perspective they look extremely similar - an overt appeal for supernatural intervention.
And on the good/bad thing - well I can think of countless examples of bad things overtly done in the name of god (i.e. by Christians and members of other religions justifying actions by an appeal to god's will) I can think of very few examples of the same bad actions done overtly in the name of satan. So as an example Im not aware of anyone campaigning under the banner 'Satan hates fags'.
-
So as an example Im not aware of anyone campaigning under the banner 'Satan hates fags'.
One doesn't have to campaign under any particular banner, PD. I accept that the Westboro Baptist folk are pretty obnoxious, but that is how many folk? 150-200? How many attacks on gay people have we had here in the UK alone by people who have never suggested that their actions were instigated by any religious faith? Who or what instigated those attacks?
As for the 'appearance' from outside, that can be applied to just about anything. If someone is unwilling to do a bit of research and look further than just the outward appearance, I'm suspicious about their whole outlook.
-
OK, Floo, perhaps the greatest difference between the occult and the 'supernatural' things you list is that the former is associated with Satan, whilst the others are associated with God. Since these two beings are at the opposite ends of the good/bad spectrum, the things associated with them must also be very different.
And the difference between Satan and the Biblical god is? As the god featured in the Bible is so very nasty I can't see how Satan could be any worse.
-
Tonight is Halloween and all round my local area knots of excited small children (carefully watched by their parents) are enjoying getting dressed up as skeletons, witches, ghouls etc and knocking on their neighbours' doors in the hope of some sweets. Entirely innocent and good natured.
Yet our local CofE church deeply disapproves. They sent out a flier last week asking parents to send their children to an 'animal themed' party tonight instead - dress as your 'favourite animal'. All very odd as they've never extended a general invite to a party before. Clearly this is an attempt to get kids to turn their back on Halloween and do something that the church doesn't disapprove of, presumably because they consider Halloween somehow 'ungodly'.
Why so po-faced - can't they simply let kids enjoy halloween?
Just imagine the outcry from the Daily Mail types if non religious people tried to hi-jack Christmas events and turn them into an 'animal themed' party.
ProfessorDavey,
Have you ever experienced the paranormal?
Have you seen what the evil spirits of this world can do to some people?
We never celebrated in this country the USA traditions for Halloween. America wonders why they are becoming a godless nation
but never worries about 'trick or treating'!
Harmless... is it harmless if your child has nightmares.
My son at the age of 2 had no use for nappies and dry nights. At the age of 4 years he would run to answer the door if anyone knocked. Something we were trying to stop him doing. He had no problem going to get on his bed if tired night or day for a nap.
He was a happy go lucky child. Then one halloween there was a knock at the door and my son was coming down stairs the hall adjacent to the lounge. I got up to answer the door and he ran to it opened it and the look of horror on his young face as he fell backwards off his face stuck in my mind. My son was in shock I looked out to give whoever it was a piece of my mind and there was no one there. All he could say was they had yellow eyes and fangs and long claws. My son had nightmares for months and even wet the bed. He would not go up stairs alone and would not sleep in a room alone.
Halloween, isn't harmless to children? It can psychologically torment and harm a child when (what I assume was an adult )does such stupid things where a child is involved. It took a long time for him to overcome the scare he had. It scarred him for life and he had never liked Halloween since because even today he will tell you it looked so real in his little mind.
What happens if the door they knock on is a pervert? A peado who then targets those children?
It is one way of opening the door for children to be harmed. A party is a different thing organised by parents for children.
But even then what really does bandying things about like ghosts and ghouls actually do for children?
But if they want to have an Halloween party safely why not. Too many children allowed out alone with parental supervision.
But I believe the world can be harmful and ugly enough without adding our own frightening things to it. :)
-
And the difference between Satan and the Biblical god is? As the god featured in the Bible is so very nasty I can't see how Satan could be any worse.
The difference is in that second sentence of yours. The Biblical God is as far from 'so very nasty' as one can get. I accept that you have had experiences as a child that colour your judgement, but since there are - by your own admission here - members of your family who disagree with you, I would have to suggest that your opinion isn't one that was reached rationally but emotionally - something that most of us here agree isn't a good basis for making judgements.
-
Have you seen what the evil spirits of this world can do to some people?
No.
Do you have some examples?
-
No.
Do you have some examples?
Nick, a guy who partner ran a childrens home, told me his friend and wife bought an old farm house and land very cheap.
However when knifes started flying across the kitchen at them they soon moved out. Do you not know anyone who has experienced something out of the ordinary?
Do you not believe the haunting reports or the things people have seen?
-
The difference is in that second sentence of yours. The Biblical God is as far from 'so very nasty' as one can get. I accept that you have had experiences as a child that colour your judgement, but since there are - by your own admission here - members of your family who disagree with you, I would have to suggest that your opinion isn't one that was reached rationally but emotionally - something that most of us here agree isn't a good basis for making judgements.
Nothing to do with my childhood. I have read the Bible on a regular basis since I lost my when I was 19, which you appear not to have done if you think the things attributed to god are good. Tell me what is good about god?
-
Nick, a guy who partner ran a childrens home, told me his friend and wife bought an old farm house and land very cheap.
However when knifes started flying across the kitchen at them they soon moved out.
Hearsay then.
Do you not know anyone who has experienced something out of the ordinary?
Do you not believe the haunting reports or the things people have seen?
No and no.
-
Nick, a guy who partner ran a childrens home, told me his friend and wife bought an old farm house and land very cheap.
However when knifes started flying across the kitchen at them they soon moved out. Do you not know anyone who has experienced something out of the ordinary?
Do you not believe the haunting reports or the things people have seen?
Then your friend is telling lies.
No knives started flying across the kitchen unless he or she threw them.
That's how knives behave ALL THE TIME.
-
Nick, a guy who partner ran a childrens home, told me his friend and wife bought an old farm house and land very cheap.
However when knifes started flying across the kitchen at them they soon moved out. Do you not know anyone who has experienced something out of the ordinary?
Do you not believe the haunting reports or the things people have seen?
As you know our previous property had a lot of weird activity going on there for 11 of the 15 years we lived in it. However, my husband (a scientist) and I are convinced there is a natural explanation for it all. Even if science hasn't come up with an explanation for the so called paranormal at present, I believe in the future it will. I would much sooner put my faith in science, which has achieved so much over the years, than in religion, which hasn't.
-
Hearsay then.
No and no.
I have seen what you might call 'ghosts' personally. Do I think they are the dead person? No but something of a paranormal
nature all the same. I have seen items move on their own and I have seen shadows and heard things.
So no hearsay but I know you couldn't cope if anything came your way.
-
So no hearsay but I know you couldn't cope if anything came your way.
How do you know that?
Prove it.....
-
I have seen what you might call 'ghosts' personally. Do I think they are the dead person? No but something of a paranormal
nature all the same. I have seen items move on their own and I have seen shadows and heard things.
Over active imagination, the brain does strange things.....
-
ProfessorDavey,
Have you ever experienced the paranormal?
No
Have you seen what the evil spirits of this world can do to some people?
No - I've seen awful things happening in this world but they are caused by people, or due to natural phenomena, not evil spirits for the simple reason that evil spirits don't exist.
We never celebrated in this country the USA traditions for Halloween.
Wrong - see earlier discussions - traditions basically identical to trick or treat existed in Britain well before they did in America, albeit called something different. Likewise carving of fruit/veg and 'jack-o-laterns', albeit different type of fruit.
Harmless... is it harmless if your child has nightmares.
My son at the age of 2 had no use for nappies and dry nights. At the age of 4 years he would run to answer the door if anyone knocked. Something we were trying to stop him doing. He had no problem going to get on his bed if tired night or day for a nap.
He was a happy go lucky child. Then one halloween there was a knock at the door and my son was coming down stairs the hall adjacent to the lounge. I got up to answer the door and he ran to it opened it and the look of horror on his young face as he fell backwards off his face stuck in my mind. My son was in shock I looked out to give whoever it was a piece of my mind and there was no one there. All he could say was they had yellow eyes and fangs and long claws. My son had nightmares for months and even wet the bed. He would not go up stairs alone and would not sleep in a room alone.
Halloween, isn't harmless to children? It can psychologically torment and harm a child when (what I assume was an adult )does such stupid things where a child is involved. It took a long time for him to overcome the scare he had. It scarred him for life and he had never liked Halloween since because even today he will tell you it looked so real in his little mind.
I am sorry to hear about your story, and I'm certainly not going to deny its veracity, but I think this is very, very rare. I've never known a kid to be genuinely scared by modern Halloween traditions sufficient to cause nightmares etc. Indeed I think the current traditions of pumpkin carving and trick or treat are so sanitised that there is virtually nothing scary about them. I've known kids scared of all sorts of things - fireworks, clowns, animals, religious symbols etc, but not current Halloween. Should we ban all those other things that are much more likely to terrify kids?
On the latter, despite never having known a kid to be genuinely scared of Halloween customs, I have known I few who were scared and deeply disturbed by Christian symbolism - specifically the man nailed to a piece of wood, 'dying for us'. Additionally the notion of drinking blood and eating flesh, often imposed on children at the very tender age of 7. That is disturbing to kids, not getting dressed as a witch and getting chocolate from your neighbours.
What happens if the door they knock on is a pervert? A peado who then targets those children?
Evidence please of that ever happening. Plus of course there remains parental responsibility. Young kids shouldn't be trick or treating on their own, but with supervision from an adult or much older children.
But on the topic of perverts etc, I'm not aware of Halloween being used to groom children. There are, of course countless examples of children being groomed through interactions with religious organisations.
But even then what really does bandying things about like ghosts and ghouls actually do for children?
In its current form loads of fun.
But if they want to have an Halloween party safely why not. Too many children allowed out alone with parental supervision.
But I believe the world can be harmful and ugly enough without adding our own frightening things to it. :)
See above my point about parental supervision.
On the world being frightening - yup you are right it can be at times, and kids actually do need to learn to cope with this. But if you think that Halloween customs are significantly adding to that then you really have completely lost perspective.
-
#110
The difference is in that second sentence of yours. The Biblical God is as far from 'so very nasty' as one can get. I accept that you have had experiences as a child that colour your judgement, but since there are - by your own admission here - members of your family who disagree with you, I would have to suggest that your opinion isn't one that was reached rationally but emotionally - something that most of us here agree isn't a good basis for making judgements.
Nothing to do with my childhood. I have read the Bible on a regular basis since I lost my when I was 19, which you appear not to have done if you think the things attributed to god are good. Tell me what is good about god?
The problem with your question Floo is that as soon as it is answered, you will start claiming that there is no evidence for the response.
So let me be clear. Can the existence of the Biblical God be assumed, "Yes" or "No"?
If "No", then your question is meaningless as there is no biblical God to discuss.
If "Yes", then how about John 3 v 16-17:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
or Romans 5 v 8:
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
-
#117
Have you seen what the evil spirits of this world can do to some people?
No
No - I've seen awful things happening in this world but they are caused by people, or due to natural phenomena, not evil spirits for the simple reason that evil spirits don't exist.
Is this because you have an absence of belief that evil spirits exist, or are you claiming as fact that evil spirits don't exist? If the latter, what reasoning can you give to back it up?
-
#110
The problem with your question Floo is that as soon as it is answered, you will start claiming that there is no evidence for the response.
So let me be clear. Can the existence of the Biblical God be assumed, "Yes" or "No"?
If "No", then your question is meaningless as there is no biblical God to discuss.
If "Yes", then how about John 3 v 16-17:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
or Romans 5 v 8:
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Can the existence of Australia be assumed? Well since the answer to that is no, then according to you the question is meaningless. I think you better think it out again.
-
#110
The problem with your question Floo is that as soon as it is answered, you will start claiming that there is no evidence for the response.
So let me be clear. Can the existence of the Biblical God be assumed, "Yes" or "No"?
If "No", then your question is meaningless as there is no biblical God to discuss.
If "Yes", then how about John 3 v 16-17:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
or Romans 5 v 8:
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Sword the question is never answered sensibly. There is no evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god. What is loving for heaven's sake about a god who supposedly produced a son for the express purpose of having it die in an awful manner to 'save' humans from god's screw up in creating human nature?
-
#117
Is this because you have an absence of belief that evil spirits exist, or are you claiming as fact that evil spirits don't exist? If the latter, what reasoning can you give to back it up?
I do not believe in the existence of evil spirits. That lack of believe provides no onus on me to prove anything. The onus is on those that do believe that evil spirits exist to provide their evidence for their existence.
So until or unless there is convincing evidence for the existence of evil spirits we should proceed on the basis that they don't exist in our discussions.
-
I would have been terrified and had nightmares if, as a child, I'd seen a macabre figure even if it was explained to me that it was just a costume. Come to think of it, I'd have been scared as an adult, especially a young adult.
So Sassy's story about her son sounds reasonable to me. Some kids are more sensitive to such things, even to pictures and stories, and the children are not 'silly', it's just how they are. They usually outgrow it.
Nothing wrong with small children, accompanied by an adult, dressed up as little Potteresque figures but 'big' people wearing macabre costumes straight out of adult horror movies is not on. It's up to parents to ensure, as far as possible, their kids don't do that, neither should they behave in a menacing fashion which takes all the fun out of the business.
As for evil spirits, the human psyche is very complex; 'evil spirit' can mean more than one thing.
-
How would you suggest that they keep those things to themselves?
Then in the very same sentence you want them to adopt our ideas because it would be better for them. How patronising is that?
Ps, we don't have to follow them, you do know that, don't you?
It was meant to be a fingers down the throat comment Toe, over the top, the same as having a go at a good friend of a northerner when you're a Southerner, no more than that and I did mention that I thought Halloween was a bit of fun, however I find it sad when we see to many imported not of our culture bits coming in from the US.
ippy
-
It was meant to be a fingers down the throat comment Toe, over the top, the same as having a go at a good friend of a northerner when you're a Southerner, no more than that and I did mention that I thought Halloween was a bit of fun, however I find it sad when we see to many imported not of our culture bits coming in from the US.
ippy
So what is too much of our cultural bits? What about recognising that much of those elements are based on what we exported to the US?
-
The difference is in that second sentence of yours. The Biblical God is as far from 'so very nasty' as one can get. I accept that you have had experiences as a child that colour your judgement, but since there are - by your own admission here - members of your family who disagree with you, I would have to suggest that your opinion isn't one that was reached rationally but emotionally - something that most of us here agree isn't a good basis for making judgements.
Are you honestly saying YOUR god didn't do what any 'sane' person would call horrible & nasty, in the Bible???? Drowning the whole world cos he made an eff-up the 'first' time round.
God regrets his decision & destroys most everything.
Is this the attitude of a god???
Nick
-
I would have been terrified and had nightmares if, as a child, I'd seen a macabre figure even if it was explained to me that it was just a costume. Come to think of it, I'd have been scared as an adult, especially a young adult.
That's interesting - my view is that Halloween used to be more scary. Now it is all about costumes, and much as they might be scary (most aren't) it is pretty easy to explain to a kid that it is just a person in a costume - easier when they might be wearing a costume too.
Back when I was a kid there was much greater focus on ghost stories, and these are much harder to erase from the mind as they work on the imagination.
That said I'm surprised at how many people I know who are genuinely spooked by clowns - including some adults.
-
That's interesting - my view is that Halloween used to be more scary. Now it is all about costumes, and much as they might be scary (most aren't) it is pretty easy to explain to a kid that it is just a person in a costume - easier when they might be wearing a costume too.
Back when I was a kid there was much greater focus on ghost stories, and these are much harder to erase from the mind as they work on the imagination.
That said I'm surprised at how many people I know who are genuinely spooked by clowns - including some adults.
You mock us coulrophobics! And I am also pediophobic as well!
-
You mock us coulrophobics! And I am also pediophobic as well!
I mock no-one ;)
Merely expressed surprise. Actually although I wouldn't describe myself as either coulrophobic or pediophobic (I had to look them up), I can see the point - macabre both.
-
Sword the question is never answered sensibly. There is no evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god.
So if you believe this, why do you ask questions such as
Tell me what is good about god?
-
So until or unless there is convincing evidence for the existence of evil spirits we should proceed on the basis that they don't exist in our discussions.
And what would you consider as convincing evidence?
-
So if you believe this, why do you ask questions such as
It is a reasonable question for those who do believe god exists, what is good about it? The Bible doesn't exactly do it any favours in the goodness stakes!
-
Prof D: Back when I was a kid there was much greater focus on ghost stories, and these are much harder to erase from the mind as they work on the imagination.
You ain't kidding!!!
Then there was Bram Stoker and Edgar Allen Poe, unsuitable for children but didn't stop young children from dipping in if there was a volume in Grandad's bookcase.
Children do seem to like 'a good scare' up to a point, I've heard tales of brownies (not me) and cubs sitting around campfires being told ghost stories and singing ghostly songs. I was never a brownie or a girl guide but do remember groups of us sitting together trying to outdo eachother with ghostly and macabre stories.
It was alright at the time - but not when alone in bed at night!
.........
We were talking about 'evil spirits', hauntings and suchlike earlier in the thread.
I wonder if anyone watched the ITV 3-part series 'Him' which finished last night. I did and it concerned a teenage boy who had had, since childhood, certain powers. For example he could move things and people (telekinesis), make things happen, levitate. No-one knew how or why (& it wasn't something he and his family advertised anyway), but his grandmother understood it because his grandfather had the same and eventually committed suicide. The boy was very troubled by this dubious 'gift'.
Grandma told him he should only use those powers for good. After a few happenings, that's what he did and found peace.
I'd had misgivings before watching this because partly because I am sceptical and also because such phenomena are so often sensationalised in drama. However it was an extremely moving drama with sensitive portrayals.
There is probably a very sound scientific explanation for things like that (if they really do happen), which we do not yet know but in the meantime there are people who suffer because they are burdened with something they do not want or understand. Used to be like that with Tourette's.
-
It is a reasonable question for those who do believe god exists, what is good about it? The Bible doesn't exactly do it any favours in the goodness stakes!
So you ask them about the biblical God, but then when they answer the question, you claim that there is no evidence for ... Surely, once they've answered the question, you have to use the Bible to counter their argument?
-
God's existence or anything about him/her/it cannot be proved or disproved with the Bible.
It's all about personal experience and that can't really be satisfactorily put into words no matter how we try.
-
And what would you consider as convincing evidence?
The same as I suspect you would require as convincing evidence to believe that unicorns exist, or fairies at the bottom of the garden or an invisible teapot orbiting Mars.
You cannot dial up and dial down the level of evidence required on the basis of whether you already believe something to be true. You must apply the test consistently.
So when I apply the test to unicorns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, invisible teapots orbiting Mars or evil spirits all fail because there is no evidence for any of them. By contrast (I presume) you will reject unicorns, fairies at the bottom of the garden and invisible teapots orbiting Mars for lack of convincing evidence, yet accept evil spirits for which there is no more evidence than the other three.
-
The same as I suspect you would require as convincing evidence to believe that unicorns exist, or fairies at the bottom of the garden or an invisible teapot orbiting Mars.
You cannot dial up and dial down the level of evidence required on the basis of whether you already believe something to be true. You must apply the test consistently.
British law already dials such requirements up and down, PD. The level of evidence in a civil court case differs from that in a criminal court case. This pattern of different levels of evidence seems to be quite common in a variety of areas of life.
Unfortunately, when it comes to non-naturalistic situations and circumstances, natural law doesn't hold.
-
British law already dials such requirements up and down, PD. The level of evidence in a civil court case differs from that in a criminal court case. This pattern of different levels of evidence seems to be quite common in a variety of areas of life.
I'm no legal expert but I'd have thought that the definitions of what constitutes credible evidence in civil and criminal law, even where these differ, don't involve accepting non-natural claims as evidence - what method would the court use to assess such evidence?.
Unfortunately, when it comes to non-naturalistic situations and circumstances, natural law doesn't hold.
'Unfortunately' unless you can demonstrate a 'non-naturalistic situation' and also set out the details of any non-natural laws that apply: in other words the method used to investigate the 'non-natural situation', your analogy involving legal matters unceremoniously bites the dust.
-
British law already dials such requirements up and down, PD. The level of evidence in a civil court case differs from that in a criminal court case. This pattern of different levels of evidence seems to be quite common in a variety of areas of life.
Unfortunately, when it comes to non-naturalistic situations and circumstances, natural law doesn't hold.
Misuse of the term natural law. Come back when you have talked to someone who understands the term.
-
That's interesting - my view is that Halloween used to be more scary. Now it is all about costumes, and much as they might be scary (most aren't) it is pretty easy to explain to a kid that it is just a person in a costume - easier when they might be wearing a costume too.
Back when I was a kid there was much greater focus on ghost stories, and these are much harder to erase from the mind as they work on the imagination.
That said I'm surprised at how many people I know who are genuinely spooked by clowns - including some adults.
All Souls Night was orginally NOTHING to do with the American Halloween now infiltrated into our Country. We never went trick or treating as kids it didn't exist. Bonfire night was our bag.
Sick of seeing the American traditions trickling into this country.
-
British law already dials such requirements up and down, PD. The level of evidence in a civil court case differs from that in a criminal court case.
True but irrelevant.
I said 'You cannot dial up and dial down the level of evidence required on the basis of whether you already believe something to be true.'
So the equivalent in you legal analogy would be for the police and CPS to dial up and down level of evidence depending on strength to which they believed someone to be guilty. So if they were really convinced they were guilty perhaps only to require on the balance of probabilities while if they were less sure to require beyond reasonable doubt. But we don't do that - regardless of whether the Police or CPS believes someone to be guilty we apply the same standard of evidence.
-
Unfortunately, when it comes to non-naturalistic situations and circumstances, natural law doesn't hold.
What has non naturalistic got to do with it. I'm not talking about whether unicorns etc exist in a non naturalistic context (whatever that might be) but in a naturalistic one - the standards of evidence are those that you might use to determine whether anything else exists.
What you are effectively saying is 'but they are magic and magic things can simply be believed into existence, regardless of a complete lack of evidence for their existence'.
-
All Souls Night was orginally NOTHING to do with the American Halloween now infiltrated into our Country. We never went trick or treating as kids it didn't exist. Bonfire night was our bag.
Sick of seeing the American traditions trickling into this country.
Blimey I feel faint, I actually agree with you!
-
All Souls Night was orginally NOTHING to do with the American Halloween now infiltrated into our Country. We never went trick or treating as kids it didn't exist. Bonfire night was our bag.
Sick of seeing the American traditions trickling into this country.
I'm sorry but you are wrong - the Halloween traditions called guising or souling (which are pretty well identical to trick or treat) were prevalent in Britain long before they became popular in the USA. Likewise jack o lanterns (carving a large fruit or veg and putting a candle in it) which is pretty well identical to pumpkin carving.
So these traditions are actually British in origin, were exported to the USA where they evolved and have now been imported back.
And sure bonfire night was a bigger deal than Halloween when I was a kid, but they were different and Halloween was still celebrated (certainly where I lived). We used to have a party, play games including ducking for apples, get dressed up and tell ghost stories. So it certainly isn't the case that we used to celebrate bonfire night and not Halloween and now we celebrate Halloween and not bonfire night. We used to celebrate both and still do. Last Saturday I went to a Halloween party, Monday (Halloween itself we did pumpkin carving and trick or treat), tonight is a firework display at my daughter's school and tomorrow (the 5th) we will be at the big firework's display in the City.
-
Wot the prof said. Many a turnip was mutilated in the cause of guising, manny a face dooked for apples and subsequently covered in treacle in the not so dim and distant past. The Americanised stuff is a souped up commercialised hyped version of what existed here for centuries.
-
Wot the prof said. Many a turnip was mutilated in the cause of guising, manny a face dooked for apples and subsequently covered in treacle in the not so dim and distant past. The Americanised stuff is a souped up commercialised hyped version of what existed here for centuries.
I agree.
-
I'm sorry but you are wrong - the Halloween traditions called guising or souling (which are pretty well identical to trick or treat) were prevalent in Britain long before they became popular in the USA. Likewise jack o lanterns (carving a large fruit or veg and putting a candle in it) which is pretty well identical to pumpkin carving.
So these traditions are actually British in origin, were exported to the USA where they evolved and have now been imported back.
And sure bonfire night was a bigger deal than Halloween when I was a kid, but they were different and Halloween was still celebrated (certainly where I lived). We used to have a party, play games including ducking for apples, get dressed up and tell ghost stories. So it certainly isn't the case that we used to celebrate bonfire night and not Halloween and now we celebrate Halloween and not bonfire night. We used to celebrate both and still do. Last Saturday I went to a Halloween party, Monday (Halloween itself we did pumpkin carving and trick or treat), tonight is a firework display at my daughter's school and tomorrow (the 5th) we will be at the big firework's display in the City.
Your confusing some people going house to house in the 16th century reciting verses for food with the modern day theme of trick and treating. They were not and are not one and the same thing.
The costume wearing and trick or treating only goes back to the 19th Century and when was America colonised?
It had it independence on the 4th July 1776.
Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492.
The 15th Century and the evidence of halloween being celebrated in the trick or treating fashion today goes back to the 1920's started in America. The traditions coming here today started in America. The costume wearing started in the 19th century.
America already well and truly established. You cannot lump everything in together and make it the same thing.
Halloween with the ghouls, witches and skeleton costumes is originally American.
-
Your confusing some people going house to house in the 16th century reciting verses for food with the modern day theme of trick and treating. They were not and are not one and the same thing.
The costume wearing and trick or treating only goes back to the 19th Century and when was America colonised?
It had it independence on the 4th July 1776.
Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492.
The 15th Century and the evidence of halloween being celebrated in the trick or treating fashion today goes back to the 1920's started in America. The traditions coming here today started in America. The costume wearing started in the 19th century.
America already well and truly established. You cannot lump everything in together and make it the same thing.
Halloween with the ghouls, witches and skeleton costumes is originally American.
Sorry but you are talking rubbish.
Guising continued (and continues) in Britain well after your date, and the American trick or treat seems to be a direct copy of late 19thC and early 20thC guising practice.
So, for example in 1895 guising in Scotland is described as 'masqueraders in disguise carrying lanterns made out of scooped out turnips, visit homes to be rewarded with cakes, fruit and money' - sound familiar. Actually the American tradition was also described as guising and was first recorded only in the early 20thC (about 1910), the term trick or treat only appeared later still (about the late 1920s).
So the American trick or treat is a direct copy of earlier British traditions.
And the notion that wearing of costumes is a specifically American thing is again totally wrong - the whole point of 'guising' (indeed the derivation of the word) is that people worn costumes to disguise themselves as they went door to door to receive treats.
-
'Scuse me. WE went rhyming, dressed up, with turnipp lanterns, from door to door as kids in the 60-s and seventies, Sass. We had party pieces, we went from house to house, played the traditional games, etc. We graduated to galloshans as teens and young adults - same idea; dressing up, and singing trad songs at doors, and farms - though as the night wore on, the memories got - er - hazy! The galloshans usually started at the manse - or one of them, as the town had two ministers of the Kirk - the manse being the name for a ministers house. Both were very special friends of mine, but we liked Dan's manse....his taste in 'the cratur' was a gift he handed down to me. Sometimes those on gallowshans would take gifts to housebound people (This usually happened early in the evening....doing it later on would have been very hit and miss....) That was definately NOT the sixteenth century. (Not unless Slade was around then, which wouldn't surprise me)
-
Just to echo Anchorman's take and note that all the ghost and witches stuff was very prevalent in guising. And again to echo Jim, most of the costumes would be homemade, maybe using a plastic guising mask. Indeed, one of the common party pieces that one might have in the West of Scotland would be to recite part of Tam O'Shanter, which is chock full of witches.
Certainly when I was growing up, Halloween was a much bigger thing for us than Bonfire Night.
-
I don't know if Anchorman is a Scot like yourself, NS, but wonder if guising was more popular in Scotland than England because I never came across it here.
Guy Fawkes night is probably celebrated here more than Scotland because the Houses of Parliament are in London.
Halloween was also low key compared to now, no trick or treating, but some people had parties (often combining both) if their birthdays were around that time. There was apple bobbing and that sort of thing.
The only problem I have with fireworks, apart from potential danger if people aren't careful, is how they scare pets. Most of us will keep them indoors (they are still scared, my cats used to cuddle up and shudder), but cats often go out early and don't come back for hours. They really are quite terrified. Still, fireworks are very pretty and we get a lot of them at this time of year, Deepvali onwards.
-
To be fair, there has been much effort in my home town to keep the idea of guising and galoshans continuing, rather than trick or treating, which is the US adaptation of the first 2, but it is very much only an adaptation, and one that can be seen to arise from them.
-
Just to echo Anchorman's take and note that all the ghost and witches stuff was very prevalent in guising. And again to echo Jim, most of the costumes would be homemade, maybe using a plastic guising mask. Indeed, one of the common party pieces that one might have in the West of Scotland would be to recite part of Tam O'Shanter, which is chock full of witches.
Certainly when I was growing up, Halloween was a much bigger thing for us than Bonfire Night.
I remember as a kid, in the late 1950's/early 60's, we had masks that were known (in Glasgow anyway) as 'false faces' - they were made of a kind of cardboard so that as the night wore on the mouth got soggier and soggier.
Happy days.
-
I don't know if Anchorman is a Scot like yourself, NS, but wonder if guising was more popular in Scotland than England because I never came across it here.
Guy Fawkes night is probably celebrated here more than Scotland because the Houses of Parliament are in London.
Halloween was also low key compared to now, no trick or treating, but some people had parties (often combining both) if their birthdays were around that time. There was apple bobbing and that sort of thing.
The only problem I have with fireworks, apart from potential danger if people aren't careful, is how they scare pets. Most of us will keep them indoors (they are still scared, my cats used to cuddle up and shudder), but cats often go out early and don't come back for hours. They really are quite terrified. Still, fireworks are very pretty and we get a lot of them at this time of year, Deepvali onwards.
Both Anchorman and I are West of Scotland chaps. The point is that the traditions of Halloween are also entwined with Celtic roots in Samhain. This was what was exported to the US and adapted.
Anchorman and I are from either side of the sectarian divide in the West of Scotland, a divide that has its own peculiar relationship with history. The subtext of the Gunpowder Plot being a Roman Catholic conspiracy where a Catholic is the effigy burnt made it problematic as a community activity. Thankfully we have moved on a little in that aspect and most of the real history is getting burnt away from it.
-
Brownie; Yep. I'm very much a Scot (For my sins I'm a reader in the Church of Scotland to boot) I've never really understood the guy fawkes thingy here - after all, in 1605, James VI was an absentee landlord, and Scotland's parliament met in Edinburgh - so why we remember the failure to blow up Westminster her is a mystery to me....still, any excuse for a shindig! Gordon's right - 'False faces' did get soggier as the night wore on - and dependant on the liquid imbibed, more fragrant (and possibly a fire hazard) We had to imbibe, you understand: the loss of blood in carving the blasted turnip lanterns had to be replaced in SOME manner.....!
-
Speaking of Dan (the aforesaid source of my appreciation of 'the cratur'), Dan Robertson was avery committed Christian minister who was also passionately interested in Celtic spirituality, and the mythology of the Gealtachdt. As well as encouraging the maintainance of the old traditions, I have him to thank for being made aware of the Iona Community, an ecumenical group technically under the oversight of the Church of Scotland, which I joined as a young Christian in the early eighties, and with which I still hold many ties (Plus when some of us get together, there's a fair selection of whiskies available....)
-
Halloween was also low key compared to now, no trick or treating, but some people had parties (often combining both) if their birthdays were around that time. There was apple bobbing and that sort of thing.
I was a child growing up in England in the 1960s and 70s - firstly in the North West, then in Hertfordshire.
We always celebrated Halloween and this was completely separate from bonfire night. No-one in our family had a birthday at that timer of year so it was never linked to a birthday party.
My Mum was from the west of Scotland which may perhaps explain its significant. That said it was a pretty common thing when I was growing up - there wasn't trick or treat, but we did have Halloween parties with ducking for apples, the house got decorated, we'd tell spooky stories and play spooky games.
-
Sorry but you are talking rubbish.
Guising continued (and continues) in Britain well after your date, and the American trick or treat seems to be a direct copy of late 19thC and early 20thC guising practice./quote]
I am not wrong just because you want it to be wrong.
The trick and treating of today originated in the USA in the 1920's. FACT.
So, for example in 1895 guising in Scotland is described as 'masqueraders in disguise carrying lanterns made out of scooped out turnips, visit homes to be rewarded with cakes, fruit and money' - sound familiar. Actually the American tradition was also described as guising and was first recorded only in the early 20thC (about 1910), the term trick or treat only appeared later still (about the late 1920s).
Again read the history... lanterns have been used ALL the time in all nations as lights before street lamps.
You could not see your hand before your face in the darkness of night when no moon or clouds.
What I said is correct but then we were not there were we.
The modern form of trick or treat is American and started in the 1920's. The others have been explained to you.
You were incorrect as you took one form of 'guising' to cover all. Christ is the beginning of Christianity but many sects claim there is one true Church and they are it. But God knows his children and they are the ones who do as Christ did.
They obey the commandments to love God and others.
So the American trick or treat is a direct copy of earlier British traditions.
And the notion that wearing of costumes is a specifically American thing is again totally wrong - the whole point of 'guising' (indeed the derivation of the word) is that people worn costumes to disguise themselves as they went door to door to receive treats.
-
The modern form of trick or treat is American and started in the 1920's.
The only thing that happened in the late 1920s was that the name of a custom began to change - from guising to trick or treat. The custom itself remained the same. And that custom was imported into the USA from Britain. We have since imported the evolved custom back, but its origins remain British.
What I said is correct but then we were not there were we.
Actually some posters here were there - in other words have childhood memories of guising in Britain.
-
Thank you very much those of you for the information about the celtic roots of guising and other surrounding history. It's very interesting and I knew little about it before.
-
So what is too much of our cultural bits? What about recognising that much of those elements are based on what we exported to the US?
Yes interesting Bill Bryson touches on this in his book, the one he did about America, bit late can't think of the correct name of it.
ippy
-
God's existence or anything about him/her/it cannot be proved or disproved with the Bible.
It's all about personal experience and that can't really be satisfactorily put into words no matter how we try.
Exactly, you've no evidence.
ippy
-
Never said I did, ippy.
-
The only thing that happened in the late 1920s was that the name of a custom began to change - from guising to trick or treat. The custom itself remained the same. And that custom was imported into the USA from Britain. We have since imported the evolved custom back, but its origins remain British.
Actually some posters here were there - in other words have childhood memories of guising in Britain.
Look Prof, You were wrong, you obviously googled and got it wrong. Should have read the history. You can't change the facts.
-
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/10/how-the-tradition-of-trick-or-treating-got-started/
http://www.rampantscotland.com/know/blknow_halloween.htm
-
Look Prof, You were wrong, you obviously googled and got it wrong. Should have read the history. You can't change the facts.
On the contrary, you have it wrong Sassy.
For example see more evidence from Brownie (last post) that the Americans imported the British tradition of guising - over time it evolved and the name changed, but the basic custom remained the same.
What we now know as trick or treat was originally a British custom and was imported into the states in late Victorian times.
Those are the facts Sassy, whichever record of history you read.
-
All Souls Night was orginally NOTHING to do with the American Halloween now infiltrated into our Country.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT: All Souls was nothing to do with American Halloween.
ABSULUTELY WRONG: Halloween is All Souls. All Souls is the day after All Saints not the day before.
-
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT: All Souls was nothing to do with American Halloween.
ABSULUTELY WRONG: Halloween is All Souls. All Souls is the day after All Saints not the day before.
Correct.
And presumably all souls night, as referred to be Sassy would be the night before all souls day, in other words all saints day. Halloween is, of course, the night before all saints day (or all hallows day). And as with so many other festivals this is a Christianisation of an earlier pagan festival.
-
Never said I did, ippy.
I was agreeing with your statement that in effect declared that you have nothing in the way of evidence would support your religious belief.
ippy
-
Fairynuff.
-
Prof, just a thought, you know a lot about Celtic spirituality and customs, you might be interested in Owlswing's thread in Faith Sharing.