Po-faced Christians and Halloween

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[trippymonkey]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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?

[floo]

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!

[Brownie]

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.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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?

[Brownie]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Hope]

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. 

[Gordon]

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. 

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[floo]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Anchorman]

'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)