Oh. Well yeah. Meh. That's politics for ya. I don't care about that. Countries always cultivate that kind of hatred because it's easier than realistically appraising the other people in the world. My Iraqi friends Nadia and Maytham don't strike me as particularly evil, and likewise most people in America are not George W. Bush.
Dzheremi don't you dare talk blasphemy of the Geordies... that's the last warning you'll get.. hehe.. after which I'll join forces with you.. hehe OUJAi
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146509#msg146509 date=1319478219] Thanksgiving, as it is practiced in America, is frivolity. Frivolity begets frivolity. Lack of seriousness only progresses into pathological lack of seriousness. There is no off button. Once people begin the path of frivolity and lightheardness, their hearts become altogether hardened.
What am I trying to say? I agree with TITL. And it's because we have become frivolous, we have become altogether hardened.
Thanksgiving was designated a national holiday by President Lincoln in 1863 to commemorate both the 1619 Virginia colony harvest and the 1621 Plymouth Massachusetts dinner. In both cases, as well as in Europe and Saint Augusta Florida with the Spanish colonists in 1545, the purpose of this festival was to celebrate and give thanks for a good harvest. The Native American Indians also celebrated a feast at the beginning and the end of the harvest. Contrarily, Canadians did not celebrate a good harvest at first. In 1578 a formal festival was established giving thanks for travels who survived the voyage from Europe. Later, 17th century French Canadian settlers also celebrate a thanksgiving festival after a good harvest. What is most important to remember is that in the Summer of 1621, the pilgrims who survived the winter and the journey from Europe called for a day of fasting and prayer to God and asked for a bountiful harvest in the coming fall. God answered their prayers and it rained on that day and their crops were saved. Source here and here.
What started out a day of fasting and prayer has now become an orgy of commercialism, gluttony and frivolity because we have "forsaken the love [we] had at first. Consider how far [we] have fallen!" (Rev 2:4, 5). Consider how Thanksgiving was a day of fasting and prayer and now Christians use this holiday as an excuse to delay fasting. Consider how Thanksgiving was a day to thank God for the harvest and now God has been replaced by a turkey. Consider how spirituality was the primary purpose for those pilgrims and now Christians unknowingly justify and associate Black Friday with Thanksgiving, gluttony until you burst as the main focus of Thanksgiving and social peer pressure as the reason to conform and join in with secular pleasure, instead of not being part of this world.
This did not happen all of a sudden. It was a gradual, slow, degrading process of frivolity. No one took it serious enough that we should first and foremost pray and fast to God, even when the harvest is plentiful. Gradually, people neglected to fast and pray. Gradually, people neglected to give God thanks. Gradually, people neglected God entirely. This is the teaching of Balaam (Rev 2:14) and the tolerance of that women Jezebel (Rev 2:20). As I said above, once people begin the path of frivolity and lack of seriousness, their hearts become altogether hardened.
Let us return to our first love. Let us "repent and do the things [we] did at first." (Rev 2:5). Let us keep the last Thursday of November as a dedicated fast, not in conjunction with bountiful harvest or social conformity to a secular holiday, but in commemoration of His mercy that saved us from the genocide we faced in Mokattam mountain and in preparation of our Savior's birth.
Normally, I agree with everything you say, bro, but not in this case. Everything you've said here can be equally applied to Christmas and Easter. So why don't we just throw out those 'holidays' as well bil mara, since in America afterall, these holidays are nothing more than an excuse to eat, drink, make merry and exchange gifts? The Incarnation and Resurrection are replaced with Christmas trees and 'decks of holly' and the Easter bunny and Easter eggs. Does the fact that the Church has them in the liturgical calender mean it's ok to celebrate them?
You have readily admitted that Thanksgiving was, at one time, a spiritual day. Instead of discarding it, why not reinstate it as a spiritual day? Why can't the Church incorporate Thanksgiving into her liturgical calender and 'baptize' it (so to speak) as an Orthodox feast? Consider the pagan origin for the date of when the Christmas feast is celebrated. I'm sure you know that Christ was not born in the dead of winter, but, more than likely, in the spring time. However, the Church, in her wisdom, 'baptized' a pagan feast day to celebrate the birth of our Lord to bring more people into the fold. Why can't the same be done for Thanksgiving? How many of our hymns have a pagan Egyptian origin? Yet the Church was able to 'baptize' them and incorporate them into our liturgical services. Thanksgiving is by no means of pagan origin. On the contrary, it has Christian roots, roots which have been lost amid all the commercialization and materialism. That does not mean we should just merely toss it aside. The fact that it falls during the Nativity fast (in the U.S. at any rate), I think, is truly a wonderful way to begin the fast, since we are thankful, not only for the wondrous miracle our Lord performed in moving the Moqqattam mountain, but also for humbling Himself, taking flesh and becoming Man for our sakes. You speak about the evil of culture to Orthodoxy. What about the day after Easter in Egypt: Sham el Nessim? That also has pagan roots in ancient Egypt and is a day the Church has 'baptized' and included in her calender, and it is something only celebrated among Egyptians (culture based). What is the difference between Sham el Nessim and Thanksgiving from the American standpoint?
I found a great disconnect in what you've said here and what you've said in the 'After Communion' thread, particularly in regards to being anti-Pharisaical, which is something I find to be very uncharacteristic of you. Maybe I'm just unclear as to what you meant here.
Ok TITL, This is going to be long. So I apologize ahead of time. I will break this up into multiple posts to make it easier to read. The purpose of this post is not to argue for or against polygamy. It is an opportunity to really examine why we believe the things we believe in. I will try my best to be completely impartial. I will start with the conclusion: Neither monogamy nor polygamy is explicitly condoned or condemned in the Bible. The only thing consistently reinforced in the Bible is fidelity to God first and fidelity to the spouse second.
I will show arguments from proponents of polygamy (PP) and opponents ofpolygamy (OP). Most of the literature and research follows the same form: OP argue against polygamy and PP rebut their arguments.
First we should start by some definitions. Polygyny is when one man marries multiple wives. Polyandry is when one woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy is both polygyny and polyandry. Polygamy is NOT secret marriages, double lives, or legalized, masked sexual promiscuity or abuse. People and religions that practice polygamy are specific. Each wife must be treated equally, financially, emotionally and sexually. Anything else is considered adultery. I will discuss this in more detail.
OP seem to have a common argument against polygamy that revolves around a modified form of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is the belief that different dispensations or chronological periods had different rules and functions. Some believe that subsequent dispensations corrected or perfected or improved things from previous dispensations. The main characteristic of dispensationalism is categories of historical and chronological periods. This is best described by Methodius' Opponents of Origen. He writes: "At first men were allowed to marry sisters, then came polygamy, the next progress was monogamy, with continence, but the perfect state is celibacy for the kingdom of Christ". Methodius seems to be a fanatic about celibacy. Most OP will claim monogamy is equal to celibacy.
The greatest opponent of polygamy was Tertullian. He also used the dispensation argument (although it was not his only argument). Tertullian's treaty On Monogamy speaks to the heart of Abraham's polygmy. When discussing Abraham's digamy, he states Abraham was a monogamist before he was circumcised but a digamist after the circumcision. Hagar and other concubines are considered Abraham's second wives. Following St Paul's dichotomy of faith vs. the law of circumcision described in Romans 4, Tertullian contends that the monogomist Abraham was the Abraham of faith and which we are his sons, while the digamist and circumcised Abraham was the Abraham of the law, which we are not his sons. Therefore, if we refuse the law of circumcision, we must refuse polygamy. The main point is that Tertullian makes a sharp chronological distinction of dispensation. However, Tertullian mixed it up. Abraham was a digamist before he was circumcised and a monogamist after his circumcision and faith. As Cephas mentioned, Hagar's relationship was adultery, not a legal marriage (even though there was no Mosaic law yet).
The dispensation argument is also illustrated by Jesus in Matthew 19:8 and Matthew 22:30. He speaks of "in the beginning" vs. the time of Moses where divorce was allowed vs. what will happen in the Resurrection concerning marriage. The same argument has been extended to polygamy by OPs. In the beginning, especially between Adam and Eve, there was only monogamy. Then polygamy came during the Mosaic law. In Matthew 19:8, monogamy returns to the proper state. (This is another argument stated by Tertullian.) Jesus, however, was explicitly talking about divorce, not polygamy. The argument, according to PP's, can extend to marriage in the Resurrection. Because of the dispensationalism, neither monogamy nor polygamy will exist. If monogamy is the pure and righteous form of marriage and polygamy is not, and later dispensations dropped off or put away polygamy as Methodius and Tertullian allude to, then why is monogamy also put away in the end of times? It's not a good argument but it at least shows that dispensationalsim, as OP's have argued, can also be a weak argument.
In the next post, I will speak about polygamy in different religions. In another post I will list out OP and PP views and I will present the arguments on morality of polygamy.
At any point, please stop me for comments and questions. George
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=12429.msg146583#msg146583 date=1319554278] Everything you've said here can be equally applied to Christmas and Easter. So why don't we just throw out those 'holidays' as well bil mara, since in America afterall, these holidays are nothing more than an excuse to eat, drink, make merry and exchange gifts? This is why I fight with my wife every year not to put up a Christmas tree or hunt for Easter eggs. If these holidays can exist without drinking, gluttony and commercialism, then it can be baptized. But "do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” (1 Cor 15:33). Sharing in the sins of bad company will corrupt the good character of those who people who are good and the good character of these holidays. St Paul continues, "Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame." I know you are not advocating excessive eating, drinking, commercialism and sinning. But as I said before there is no off button. We can't simply live a good Christian life doused with sinful actions endorsed in certain cultural events. Eventually the sinful actions overcome the good character of these events. Why can't we simply celebrate Christmas in Church, pray the liturgy and that's it? Can we go back to a Thanksgiving or Christmas that removed excessive drinking, gluttony and commercialism? Yes. But it will it really be Thanksgiving or Christmas? Can Christmas be Christmas without the tree? Can Thanksgiving be thanksgiving without the turkey? If your answer is no, then therein lies the problem.
Instead of discarding it, why not reinstate it as a spiritual day? Why can't the Church incorporate Thanksgiving into her liturgical calender and 'baptize' it (so to speak) as an Orthodox feast?
2 reasons. First, will this baptized Thanksgiving feast rely on turkey to be legitimate, as I stated above? If the answer is yes then the physical has superceded the spiritual. St James says, "Is anyone of you happy, let him sing psalms" not "is anyone of you happy, let him eat and drink and join in festivities of dancing and buying and selling". So it cannot be a Church feast. Secondly, are we adding this baptized Thanksgiving feast to conform to society's peer pressure? If yes, how can we say "we are not of this world"? Don't we have enough Orthodox feasts that incorporate thanksgiving? Why add something foreign? We have a celebration everyday for hundreds of saints and spiritual occasions.
Consider the pagan origin for the date of when the Christmas feast is celebrated. I'm sure you know that Christ was not born in the dead of winter, but, more than likely, in the spring time.
In my opinion, this is a misconception. I wrote about this in the date of Christmas thread a few months back. Christmas was dated in December because it is 9 months after the Annunciation. The Annunciation, according to popular belief in late antiquity occurred on the Spring vernal equinox or the Ides of March. (No relation to the movie or Shakespeare's play). The Spring equinox was considered the day of creation. That is also why both the Annunciation and the Resurrection feasts are commemorated on Baramahat 29 (which in the Julian Calendar was the spring equinox). I don't think it had anything to do with pagan festivities. This maybe the Roman Catholic reason for Christmas' date, not the Orthodox. Regardless, dating a feast to fight off a pagan holiday is a very weak argument. What does it say about the Church? The Church is insecure in its followers that we need to distract them with Church feasts. This is foolish. Do we need to create a holiday to fight off Ramadan and Eid al fitr? Do we need to create a holiday to fight off holloween? Doesn't the Church date all of our holiest days on what the Bible and tradition tells us?
How many of our hymns have a pagan Egyptian origin?
Actually none. I know because I did a lot of research on the history of Coptic ethnomusicology. This idea of our hymns having a pagan or Pharonic origin was started by Ragheb Moftah and he had no evidence to support it. All musical evidence is suggestive, none of it conclusive as Moftah makes it. (This goes back to my lack of knowledge argument in the other thread). Regardless. Let's hypothetically assume some Coptic hymns can be traced to Pharonic and pagan music. The example doesn't fit the Thanksgiving argument. When Christianity was brought to Egypt, Jewish music did not come along. There was no Christian sacred music so secular and local musical styles can be applied and "baptized". But the practice of thanking God (everyday and not just on occasions) was part of the gospel of Jesus brought to Egypt by St Mark. Why baptize a pagan festival when we already had a Christian practice?
On the contrary, it has Christian roots, roots which have been lost amid all the commercialization and materialism. That does not mean we should just merely toss it aside. The fact that it falls during the Nativity fast (in the U.S. at any rate), I think, is truly a wonderful way to begin the fast, since we are thankful, not only for the wondrous miracle our Lord performed in moving the Moqqattam mountain, but also for humbling Himself, taking flesh and becoming Man for our sakes.
I don't disagree that giving thanks by creating a feast for the Moqattam mountain and the Incarnation is wrong. It is wrong to overlap it on Thanksgiving because now you are joining and mixing spiritual reasons with physical, society and worldly reasons. If you create a feast for the spiritual reasons only, no one would argue. Trying to baptize pagan feasts means you are not willing to let go of the pagan festivities. It says you have not fully given up the old man, the old ways or the old behavior (not individual behavior but society's behavior) Ask yourself, are you bring the value of pagan festivities up or are you bring the spiritual reasons down? I would rather have nothing to do with pagan origins or any feasts at all because I think these pagan origins bring the spirituality down.
You speak about the evil of culture to Orthodoxy. What about the day after Easter in Egypt: Sham el Nessim? That also has pagan roots in ancient Egypt and is a day the Church has 'baptized' and included in her calender, and it is something only celebrated among Egyptians (culture based).
We don't have a Sham el Nessim feast in the Coptic Church. We have a feast commemorating the revelation of the resurrection to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. It is precisely because people have not given up pagan customs that we have brought down spirituality of this resurrection feast.
What is the difference between Sham el Nessim and Thanksgiving from the American standpoint?
Actually nothing. In fact, it is nearly identical. Both are currently national holidays. Sham el Nessim was an ancient Egyptian holiday to commemorate Shemu, the harvest. Both feasts commemorate the harvest. However, this does not mean a national holiday, especially if one with pagan origins, should be incorporated into Christian holidays. The pagans offered salted fish, lettuce and onions to their deities on Sham el Nessim. Should Christians eat and share in foods offered to idols? The first ecumenical council in Jerusalem settled this matter. "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." Avoiding them includes not joining in their festivities. You can argue that we have baptized these festivities and activities. If your conscious can believe that then there is no problem. But if not, you do well to avoid Sham el Nessim and instead focus on spiritual meanings like the revelation of the Resurrection.
Look, don't get me wrong. I am not advocating getting rid of fun activities, even if there is a dubious pagan origin. But there is a time for everything under the sun. A time for Christian spirituality and a time for fun. As long as there is no sin involved everything is ok. But because of our weak nature fun usually includes some form of drunkenness, gluttony, carnal thinking and lack of knowledge. If you can separate these sinful things then a baptized Thanksgiving focused on spiritual growth is perfectly fine. (I don't think it is possible). Until then, why mix the two? The only reason that I see is that we don't want to separate a time for Christian spirituality and a time for fun. We want the two packaged together. There are serious consequences when these two are packaged together. It is a sign that we have begun to relax our seriousness and frivolity shows its ugly face more and more.
I found a great disconnect in what you've said here and what you've said in the 'After Communion' thread, particularly in regards to being anti-Pharisaical, which is something I find to be very uncharacteristic of you. Maybe I'm just unclear as to what you meant here.
I don't know what you mean by a disconnect. In both threads I was trying to have people focus on deep spiritual reasons for actions and customs we find ourselves engaged in and start realizing that we should not be tied to superficial, potentially evil reasons like the Pharisees. Maybe you can show me where I may have diverged in my comments.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146616#msg146616 date=1319582236] Why can't we simply celebrate Christmas in Church, pray the liturgy and that's it?
I don't see why you can't.
Can we go back to a Thanksgiving or Christmas that removed excessive drinking, gluttony and commercialism? Yes. But it will it really be Thanksgiving or Christmas? Can Christmas be Christmas without the tree? Can Thanksgiving be thanksgiving without the turkey? If your answer is no, then therein lies the problem.
You are an adult. You decide how/if you celebrate these things. What other people do or don't do is one thing. You decide what you do.
2 reasons. First, will this baptized Thanksgiving feast rely on turkey to be legitimate, as I stated above?
Not if you don't buy a turkey.
If the answer is yes then the physical has superceded the spiritual.
Careful not to take this distinction too far and end up in a gnostic understanding of thanksgiving (the action, not the holiday). Do we not eat together following the liturgy? (Sensible portions, of course!)
So it cannot be a Church feast.
Has anyone argued in this thread that it should be? If they have, I missed it. (Is that what "baptizing" the celebration means?)
I would rather have nothing to do with pagan origins or any feasts at all because I think these pagan origins bring the spirituality down.
Does this reduction in spirituality due to pre-Christian origins also apply to the Coptic language, and the earlier Demotic and Ancient Egyptian? I'm sorry, George, but while I agree with some of your concerns it seems you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
So what do you propose Remnkemi? On Thanksgiving Orthodox Christians act like nothing is going on? On New Years we all just continue life as normal?
The church has to respond to these things with positives instead of ignoring them altogether. There are children in the church who won't understand that the things you bring up and will feel depressed when their friends are talking about all the cool stuff they did on Thanksgiving. If you are a parent you would have realized this.
Now I am not saying that we participate in the same way that secular people but alternatives must be offered. That doesn't mean that they have to be Church feasts.
On a side note: Wasn't the Coptic New Year a secular celebration? If so, why accept that?
[quote author=TITL link=topic=12429.msg146633#msg146633 date=1319585801] Question for you, Andrew:
What do you suggest Orthodox Christians do on Halloween?
One thing we certainly can't do is sit at home, tell the kids to go to sleep and act like nothing is happening. One thing we certainly must do is offer them alternatives and explain the reasoning behind them.
I have a suggestion for what to do instead of Halloween, but it doesn't really matter what my idea is so I won't get into specifics, unless you really want me to. The point is that it must be spiritual.
This is nothing new in the church. When there were secular/pagan things going on (Gladiator games) the church had alternatives (sermons/gatherings).
I dimly remember alternative events being held at the church my mother brought me up in (Presbyterian) when I was a very small child. I don't recall feeling left out as a result, because there were always kids at these events who were my age, too, and they did things like give us candy for answering questions about the Bible and such.
Kids will always tease other kids. I remember being teased because my mother had blocked MTV after that Madonna video came out where Christianity was blasphemed (I can't remember which one it is, but I remember it being very controversial and my mother storming into the room the first time it came on: "Alright, that's it! No MTV!" Hahaha. Go Mom!) You can't let bratty little kids dictate how you'll raise your kids. Teach your kids to be Christians and not bow to the world. If you teach them a strong faith, they won't "miss" the worldly things you don't want around them.
So, what? We should sacrifice our faith for the sake of children?
In HGBY's article on Halloween, he mentions this:
It is at this point I want the reader to stop and think about October 31st. Do we find "All Saints Day" in the Coptic Synaxarium? My Synaxarium does not contain this celebration. Please let me know if yours does. I would certainly like to read this. I was under the impression we celebrated Coptic Saints throughout the ENTIRE year, not on one particular day. While you were searching in your Coptic Synaxarium did you happen to notice two very important feasts, which occur on October 31st, and another the following day? Did you know that the Commemoration of St Mary and the Feast of Anba Roewis occur on October 31st? I am quite sure these feasts were more familiar to you as Copts than the pagan celebration of "Halloween". Am I correct? The following day is the Feast Day of the Great Evangelist St Luke. I am quite sure you also knew this. Am I again correct?
And this:
Therefore, any day not set aside for Halloween; any day in which these practices are not symbolic of Satanic practices is alright for eating candy and wearing appropriate costumes. There exists 364 days in which one can eat candy and wear costumes. Only one day in which one cannot.
I personally think the church should do nothing on Halloween, Thanksgiving, Dec. 25th, and on American Easter.
Having a substitute for every pagan holiday isn't Orthodox. Protestant maybe.
Our faith has always been the same; however, the world around us keeps on changing. We don't weaken ourselves for the sake of the world.
I think parents are going to have to toughen up despite the negative reaction they get from their children. It's the only way.
I don't mean to say that it was. My point was that if you provide alternatives that other kids also attend, then the child isn't left out because he still plays with kids his own age. Some other kids at school might not do the same stuff, but that's really no different than how the Jewish kids don't get to celebrate Christmas. They can't really contribute to school conversations about what they got for Christmas, but they're not "left out" so much as they have their own thing that they can enjoy with other kids who also do Hannukah instead of Christmas.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12429.msg146641#msg146641 date=1319587561] I am confident your reaction does not represent the majority of children, Jeremy.
Most kids will feel left out and no parent wants to see that.
[quote author=TITL link=topic=12429.msg146642#msg146642 date=1319588158] So, what? We should sacrifice our faith for the sake of children?
You think having alternative activities for kids leads to sacrificing the faith? That's a major jump. . .please demonstrate how that happens.
In HGBY's article on Halloween, he mentions this:
It is at this point I want the reader to stop and think about October 31st. Do we find "All Saints Day" in the Coptic Synaxarium? My Synaxarium does not contain this celebration. Please let me know if yours does. I would certainly like to read this. I was under the impression we celebrated Coptic Saints throughout the ENTIRE year, not on one particular day. While you were searching in your Coptic Synaxarium did you happen to notice two very important feasts, which occur on October 31st, and another the following day? Did you know that the Commemoration of St Mary and the Feast of Anba Roewis occur on October 31st? I am quite sure these feasts were more familiar to you as Copts than the pagan celebration of "Halloween". Am I correct? The following day is the Feast Day of the Great Evangelist St Luke. I am quite sure you also knew this. Am I again correct?
And this:
Therefore, any day not set aside for Halloween; any day in which these practices are not symbolic of Satanic practices is alright for eating candy and wearing appropriate costumes. There exists 364 days in which one can eat candy and wear costumes. Only one day in which one cannot.
Those are nice quotes. . .what's your point? I never said kids should celebrate Halloween or wear costumes, etc.
I personally think the church should do nothing on Halloween, Thanksgiving, Dec. 25th, and on American Easter.
Well that contradicts the very article you used a few lines above. Don't pick and choose what you like, please. You seem to have left out this part:
[quote=Bishop Youssef]Attend Church, the Vespers, and the Exaltation of the Saints on October 31st. Create plays and skits for the great saints St. Mary, St. Roewis, and St. Luke. The Mother of God, the poor layman who sold salt, and the Gospel writer's life can teach us so much! Reflect upon their lives. Spiritually meet together, and then enjoy the social atmosphere of Christian fellowship, Saints' plays and Agape meal. Let's all give thanks to God for a true Christian reason to celebrate this day!
Having a substitute for every pagan holiday isn't Orthodox. Protestant maybe.
Our faith has always been the same; however, the world around us keeps on changing. We don't weaken ourselves for the sake of the world.
Since when does offering an alternative that keeps kids off the streets equal weakening ourselves? If anything, it strengthens the kids.
I think parents are going to have to toughen up despite the negative reaction they get from their children. It's the only way.
It's not that parents are weak and need toughening up because they are so soft. It is that kids don't understand and think they are being deprived of things. When they grow older they won't need an alternative activity.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=12429.msg146644#msg146644 date=1319589067] I don't mean to say that it was. My point was that if you provide alternatives that other kids also attend, then the child isn't left out because he still plays with kids his own age. Some other kids at school might not do the same stuff, but that's really no different than how the Jewish kids don't get to celebrate Christmas. They can't really contribute to school conversations about what they got for Christmas, but they're not "left out" so much as they have their own thing that they can enjoy with other kids who also do Hannukah instead of Christmas.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12429.msg146641#msg146641 date=1319587561] I am confident your reaction does not represent the majority of children, Jeremy.
Most kids will feel left out and no parent wants to see that.
I agree to a certain extent. . .it does depend on what age group. But alternatives are sometimes necessary when the secular activities are harming the children who don't understand why all their friends are running around and having fun while they are forced to go to bed. For a 5 year old that is devastating.
For those who think it is unOrthodox to provide alternatives read this:
[quote=Fr. John Moses]n the strictly Orthodox early Celtic Church, the holy Fathers tried to counteract this pagan new year festival that honored the Lord of Death, by establishing the Feast of All Saints on the same day. (It differs in the East, where the Feast of All Saints is celebrated on the Sunday following Pentecost). The custom of the Celtic Church was for the faithful Christians to attend a vigil service and a morning celebration of the Holy Eucharist. This custom created the term Halloween. The Old English of "All Hallow E'en", i.e., the eve commemorating all those who were hallowed (sanctified) became Halloween. . .
The ancient Slavic counterpart to Halloween in ancient Russia was Navy Dien' (Old Slavonic for the dead "nav" ), which was also called Radunitsa and celebrated in the spring. To supplant it, the Eastern Church attached this feast to Easter, for celebration on Tuesday of Saint Thomas ' Week (second week after Easter). The Church also changed the name of the feast into Radonitsa, from Russian "radost" - joy, of Easter and of the resurrection from the dead of the whole manhood of Jesus Christ. Gradually Radunitsa yielded to Easter's greater importance and became less popular. And many dark practices from old Russian pagan feasts (Semik, Kupalo, Rusalia and some aspects of the Maslennitsa) still survived till the beginning of our century. . .
[quote=Fr. John Moses]". . .to piously say to our beloved pagans that we don't celebrate because we are "not of this world" (i.e. Orthodox) is laughable if we are as worldly as they are. By worldly, I don't mean that we participate in the gross sins of the flesh. But if we are also hurried, concerned with success, fretting over money, fretting over possessions, constantly seeking entertainment, constantly filling our lives with noise, putting God in a Sunday morning box, finding little place for Him in the weekday cycle of work and family - then they will see the truth - we are just as pagan as they are. Our protests about Halloween will fail to convince anyone. . .
So, I don't participate, but with that alone, I shouldn't congratulate myself. What is more important is that I attain to stillness and salvation. If I do, "ten thousand around me will be saved." I doubt that loudly protesting Halloween will accomplish as much.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=12429.msg146625#msg146625 date=1319584886] Does this reduction in spirituality due to pre-Christian origins also apply to the Coptic language, and the earlier Demotic and Ancient Egyptian? I'm sorry, George, but while I agree with some of your concerns it seems you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
No there is no reduction in spirituality that should apply to the Coptic language for many reasons. First, the Coptic language is not exclusively owned by the Coptic religion. The Coptic language was used by Christians, Jews, Pagans, together. There is an inherit separation of language and religion. Secondly, all languages inherently borrow, mix, code-switch, die, "give birth" to a daughter language or evolve from a "genetically" similar language. This is how languages are classified. We can't expect the Coptic language to be an exception in a linguistic evolution from Ancient Egyptian, Demotic, Pre-Coptic, Greek bilingualism because of spirituality. Thirdly, there is no "evil" linguistic behavior but there is evil and sinful behavior in festivities.
Andrew, alternatives are ok if they are completely spiritual feasts. But if they are seen as alternatives, then they will lose their spirituality. Ask yourself if you dressed up as saints, play skits of St Mary, St Roweis, St Luke, attend a spiritual gathering, and have an agape meal on October 31st because these are all good spiritual deeds, would you do these exact things on any other day than October 31st? Would you ever do this on any other day that is not associated with Halloween? If not, then the spirituality will eventually decrease because it will always be seen as an alternative to Halloween, rather than a feast to thank God and commemorate these saints.
You asked what do I propose. I propose we have alternatives, but not so focused on similarities with secular festivities. I propose we do these alternatives in a purely spiritual matter without associating them exclusively to a special date. Give gifts to people on many days, not just Christmas. Give thanks to God for a good harvest every day, not just on Thanksgiving. Have an agape meal with people on Thanksgiving, but also have it on a random Sunday. And foremost, every feast must include repentance.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146656#msg146656 date=1319601391] Andrew, alternatives are ok if they are completely spiritual feasts. But if they are seen as alternatives, then they will lose their spirituality. Ask yourself if you dressed up as saints, play skits of St Mary, St Roweis, St Luke, attend a spiritual gathering, and have an agape meal on October 31st because these are all good spiritual deeds, would you do these exact things on any other day than October 31st? Would you ever do this on any other day that is not associated with Halloween? If not, then the spirituality will eventually decrease because it will always be seen as an alternative to Halloween, rather than a feast to thank God and commemorate these saints.
You asked what do I propose. I propose we have alternatives, but not so focused on similarities with secular festivities. I propose we do these alternatives in a purely spiritual matter without associating them exclusively to a special date. Give gifts to people on many days, not just Christmas. Give thanks to God for a good harvest every day, not just on Thanksgiving. Have an agape meal with people on Thanksgiving, but also have it on a random Sunday. And foremost, every feast must include repentance.
I agree, for the most part. We just need to keep in mind that some of us are weak and need specific days and occasions to arouse our spirit.
Eh...not really. What you had written is: "I would rather have nothing to do with pagan origins or any feasts at all because I think these pagan origins bring the spirituality down." (emphasis mine)
So I wondered, as I think it is right to wonder, if this should apply to everything with "pagan" origins. I don't see the great difference between a language and a fest, in this case, as it is all a vehicle for the expression of culture and values, so it is a matter of how you use them -- a festival that has been "baptized" to purge the pre-Christian practices associated with it and replace them with celebration of the God Christ or the saints or what have you is no different than a language becoming the vehicle for the spread of the truth of God where it had once been a tool to worship false gods.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146655#msg146655 date=1319599439] [quote author=dzheremi link=topic=12429.msg146625#msg146625 date=1319584886] Does this reduction in spirituality due to pre-Christian origins also apply to the Coptic language, and the earlier Demotic and Ancient Egyptian? I'm sorry, George, but while I agree with some of your concerns it seems you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
No there is no reduction in spirituality that should apply to the Coptic language for many reasons. First, the Coptic language is not exclusively owned by the Coptic religion. The Coptic language was used by Christians, Jews, Pagans, together. There is an inherit separation of language and religion. Secondly, all languages inherently borrow, mix, code-switch, die, "give birth" to a daughter language or evolve from a "genetically" similar language. This is how languages are classified. We can't expect the Coptic language to be an exception in a linguistic evolution from Ancient Egyptian, Demotic, Pre-Coptic, Greek bilingualism because of spirituality. Thirdly, there is no "evil" linguistic behavior but there is evil and sinful behavior in festivities.
Dear all, Sham ennisim (will find its proper Coptic spelling later) is not a pagan festivity anymore. I can't remember the details of the story, but there was an emperor, or a king, who questioned the resurrection and how Christ can get out of a sealed tomb, and one of his subordinates took an egg, and showed him how the chick gets out of the sealed egg, and that is why it has been "consecrated" as a partly Christian festivity. Eating fesi7' and onions is a continuation of an olden tradition, that it doesn't risk us offering food for idols because of our consciences being wholly Christian... however, I would agree with Remnkemi that the day lost some of its spirituality and the fun has been an end in itself. I would argue however that this is mainly found in the diaspora, but to a lesser extent in Egypt, for people have always been instructed very clearly not to go out playing unless they come to the Liturgy in the morning (early morning for my liking) from 6.00 - 8.00. Oujai qen `P[C
Jeremy, I see what you're saying but I don't think it pertains to the discussion. First of all, let me say I was talking about the linguistic characteristic of Coptic as a natural language that exhibits characteristics like any other natural language, not the expression of culture. We were talking about two different things.
But using your example, if Coptic has pagan words in its vocabulary, then I can choose not to use them when speaking of Christianity. There's nothing wrong with that. But when speaking of the truth of God, it would be wrong to use specific pagan Coptic words. It would be even more of a sin to be frivolous about its use and consider it "not a big" deal to call Jesus Christ "Ra" or "The New Amenhotep" in the name of baptizing pagan culture or pagan vocabulary. This is different than what you're describing. But this is what I was trying to express.
Comments
I didn't mean anything with the church.
OUJAi
Remnkemi, you go first.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146509#msg146509 date=1319478219]
Thanksgiving, as it is practiced in America, is frivolity. Frivolity begets frivolity. Lack of seriousness only progresses into pathological lack of seriousness. There is no off button. Once people begin the path of frivolity and lightheardness, their hearts become altogether hardened.
What am I trying to say? I agree with TITL. And it's because we have become frivolous, we have become altogether hardened.
Thanksgiving was designated a national holiday by President Lincoln in 1863 to commemorate both the 1619 Virginia colony harvest and the 1621 Plymouth Massachusetts dinner. In both cases, as well as in Europe and Saint Augusta Florida with the Spanish colonists in 1545, the purpose of this festival was to celebrate and give thanks for a good harvest. The Native American Indians also celebrated a feast at the beginning and the end of the harvest. Contrarily, Canadians did not celebrate a good harvest at first. In 1578 a formal festival was established giving thanks for travels who survived the voyage from Europe. Later, 17th century French Canadian settlers also celebrate a thanksgiving festival after a good harvest. What is most important to remember is that in the Summer of 1621, the pilgrims who survived the winter and the journey from Europe called for a day of fasting and prayer to God and asked for a bountiful harvest in the coming fall. God answered their prayers and it rained on that day and their crops were saved. Source here and here.
What started out a day of fasting and prayer has now become an orgy of commercialism, gluttony and frivolity because we have "forsaken the love [we] had at first. Consider how far [we] have fallen!" (Rev 2:4, 5). Consider how Thanksgiving was a day of fasting and prayer and now Christians use this holiday as an excuse to delay fasting. Consider how Thanksgiving was a day to thank God for the harvest and now God has been replaced by a turkey. Consider how spirituality was the primary purpose for those pilgrims and now Christians unknowingly justify and associate Black Friday with Thanksgiving, gluttony until you burst as the main focus of Thanksgiving and social peer pressure as the reason to conform and join in with secular pleasure, instead of not being part of this world.
This did not happen all of a sudden. It was a gradual, slow, degrading process of frivolity. No one took it serious enough that we should first and foremost pray and fast to God, even when the harvest is plentiful. Gradually, people neglected to fast and pray. Gradually, people neglected to give God thanks. Gradually, people neglected God entirely. This is the teaching of Balaam (Rev 2:14) and the tolerance of that women Jezebel (Rev 2:20). As I said above, once people begin the path of frivolity and lack of seriousness, their hearts become altogether hardened.
Let us return to our first love. Let us "repent and do the things [we] did at first." (Rev 2:5). Let us keep the last Thursday of November as a dedicated fast, not in conjunction with bountiful harvest or social conformity to a secular holiday, but in commemoration of His mercy that saved us from the genocide we faced in Mokattam mountain and in preparation of our Savior's birth.
Normally, I agree with everything you say, bro, but not in this case. Everything you've said here can be equally applied to Christmas and Easter. So why don't we just throw out those 'holidays' as well bil mara, since in America afterall, these holidays are nothing more than an excuse to eat, drink, make merry and exchange gifts? The Incarnation and Resurrection are replaced with Christmas trees and 'decks of holly' and the Easter bunny and Easter eggs. Does the fact that the Church has them in the liturgical calender mean it's ok to celebrate them?
You have readily admitted that Thanksgiving was, at one time, a spiritual day. Instead of discarding it, why not reinstate it as a spiritual day? Why can't the Church incorporate Thanksgiving into her liturgical calender and 'baptize' it (so to speak) as an Orthodox feast? Consider the pagan origin for the date of when the Christmas feast is celebrated. I'm sure you know that Christ was not born in the dead of winter, but, more than likely, in the spring time. However, the Church, in her wisdom, 'baptized' a pagan feast day to celebrate the birth of our Lord to bring more people into the fold. Why can't the same be done for Thanksgiving? How many of our hymns have a pagan Egyptian origin? Yet the Church was able to 'baptize' them and incorporate them into our liturgical services. Thanksgiving is by no means of pagan origin. On the contrary, it has Christian roots, roots which have been lost amid all the commercialization and materialism. That does not mean we should just merely toss it aside. The fact that it falls during the Nativity fast (in the U.S. at any rate), I think, is truly a wonderful way to begin the fast, since we are thankful, not only for the wondrous miracle our Lord performed in moving the Moqqattam mountain, but also for humbling Himself, taking flesh and becoming Man for our sakes. You speak about the evil of culture to Orthodoxy. What about the day after Easter in Egypt: Sham el Nessim? That also has pagan roots in ancient Egypt and is a day the Church has 'baptized' and included in her calender, and it is something only celebrated among Egyptians (culture based). What is the difference between Sham el Nessim and Thanksgiving from the American standpoint?
I found a great disconnect in what you've said here and what you've said in the 'After Communion' thread, particularly in regards to being anti-Pharisaical, which is something I find to be very uncharacteristic of you. Maybe I'm just unclear as to what you meant here.
Same with ILSM.
I'm gathering all the powerful posters on my side. You're next, Cephas.
Good luck. ;)
This is going to be long. So I apologize ahead of time. I will break this up into multiple posts to make it easier to read. The purpose of this post is not to argue for or against polygamy. It is an opportunity to really examine why we believe the things we believe in. I will try my best to be completely impartial. I will start with the conclusion: Neither monogamy nor polygamy is explicitly condoned or condemned in the Bible. The only thing consistently reinforced in the Bible is fidelity to God first and fidelity to the spouse second.
I will show arguments from proponents of polygamy (PP) and opponents ofpolygamy (OP). Most of the literature and research follows the same form: OP argue against polygamy and PP rebut their arguments.
First we should start by some definitions. Polygyny is when one man marries multiple wives. Polyandry is when one woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy is both polygyny and polyandry. Polygamy is NOT secret marriages, double lives, or legalized, masked sexual promiscuity or abuse. People and religions that practice polygamy are specific. Each wife must be treated equally, financially, emotionally and sexually. Anything else is considered adultery. I will discuss this in more detail.
OP seem to have a common argument against polygamy that revolves around a modified form of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is the belief that different dispensations or chronological periods had different rules and functions. Some believe that subsequent dispensations corrected or perfected or improved things from previous dispensations. The main characteristic of dispensationalism is categories of historical and chronological periods. This is best described by Methodius' Opponents of Origen. He writes: "At first men were allowed to marry sisters, then came polygamy, the next progress was monogamy, with continence, but the perfect state is celibacy for the kingdom of Christ". Methodius seems to be a fanatic about celibacy. Most OP will claim monogamy is equal to celibacy.
The greatest opponent of polygamy was Tertullian. He also used the dispensation argument (although it was not his only argument). Tertullian's treaty On Monogamy speaks to the heart of Abraham's polygmy. When discussing Abraham's digamy, he states Abraham was a monogamist before he was circumcised but a digamist after the circumcision. Hagar and other concubines are considered Abraham's second wives. Following St Paul's dichotomy of faith vs. the law of circumcision described in Romans 4, Tertullian contends that the monogomist Abraham was the Abraham of faith and which we are his sons, while the digamist and circumcised Abraham was the Abraham of the law, which we are not his sons. Therefore, if we refuse the law of circumcision, we must refuse polygamy. The main point is that Tertullian makes a sharp chronological distinction of dispensation. However, Tertullian mixed it up. Abraham was a digamist before he was circumcised and a monogamist after his circumcision and faith. As Cephas mentioned, Hagar's relationship was adultery, not a legal marriage (even though there was no Mosaic law yet).
The dispensation argument is also illustrated by Jesus in Matthew 19:8 and Matthew 22:30. He speaks of "in the beginning" vs. the time of Moses where divorce was allowed vs. what will happen in the Resurrection concerning marriage. The same argument has been extended to polygamy by OPs. In the beginning, especially between Adam and Eve, there was only monogamy. Then polygamy came during the Mosaic law. In Matthew 19:8, monogamy returns to the proper state. (This is another argument stated by Tertullian.) Jesus, however, was explicitly talking about divorce, not polygamy. The argument, according to PP's, can extend to marriage in the Resurrection. Because of the dispensationalism, neither monogamy nor polygamy will exist. If monogamy is the pure and righteous form of marriage and polygamy is not, and later dispensations dropped off or put away polygamy as Methodius and Tertullian allude to, then why is monogamy also put away in the end of times? It's not a good argument but it at least shows that dispensationalsim, as OP's have argued, can also be a weak argument.
In the next post, I will speak about polygamy in different religions. In another post I will list out OP and PP views and I will present the arguments on morality of polygamy.
At any point, please stop me for comments and questions.
George
Everything you've said here can be equally applied to Christmas and Easter. So why don't we just throw out those 'holidays' as well bil mara, since in America afterall, these holidays are nothing more than an excuse to eat, drink, make merry and exchange gifts?
This is why I fight with my wife every year not to put up a Christmas tree or hunt for Easter eggs. If these holidays can exist without drinking, gluttony and commercialism, then it can be baptized. But "do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” (1 Cor 15:33). Sharing in the sins of bad company will corrupt the good character of those who people who are good and the good character of these holidays. St Paul continues, "Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame." I know you are not advocating excessive eating, drinking, commercialism and sinning. But as I said before there is no off button. We can't simply live a good Christian life doused with sinful actions endorsed in certain cultural events. Eventually the sinful actions overcome the good character of these events. Why can't we simply celebrate Christmas in Church, pray the liturgy and that's it? Can we go back to a Thanksgiving or Christmas that removed excessive drinking, gluttony and commercialism? Yes. But it will it really be Thanksgiving or Christmas? Can Christmas be Christmas without the tree? Can Thanksgiving be thanksgiving without the turkey? If your answer is no, then therein lies the problem. 2 reasons. First, will this baptized Thanksgiving feast rely on turkey to be legitimate, as I stated above? If the answer is yes then the physical has superceded the spiritual. St James says, "Is anyone of you happy, let him sing psalms" not "is anyone of you happy, let him eat and drink and join in festivities of dancing and buying and selling". So it cannot be a Church feast. Secondly, are we adding this baptized Thanksgiving feast to conform to society's peer pressure? If yes, how can we say "we are not of this world"? Don't we have enough Orthodox feasts that incorporate thanksgiving? Why add something foreign? We have a celebration everyday for hundreds of saints and spiritual occasions. In my opinion, this is a misconception. I wrote about this in the date of Christmas thread a few months back. Christmas was dated in December because it is 9 months after the Annunciation. The Annunciation, according to popular belief in late antiquity occurred on the Spring vernal equinox or the Ides of March. (No relation to the movie or Shakespeare's play). The Spring equinox was considered the day of creation. That is also why both the Annunciation and the Resurrection feasts are commemorated on Baramahat 29 (which in the Julian Calendar was the spring equinox). I don't think it had anything to do with pagan festivities. This maybe the Roman Catholic reason for Christmas' date, not the Orthodox. Regardless, dating a feast to fight off a pagan holiday is a very weak argument. What does it say about the Church? The Church is insecure in its followers that we need to distract them with Church feasts. This is foolish. Do we need to create a holiday to fight off Ramadan and Eid al fitr? Do we need to create a holiday to fight off holloween? Doesn't the Church date all of our holiest days on what the Bible and tradition tells us? Actually none. I know because I did a lot of research on the history of Coptic ethnomusicology. This idea of our hymns having a pagan or Pharonic origin was started by Ragheb Moftah and he had no evidence to support it. All musical evidence is suggestive, none of it conclusive as Moftah makes it. (This goes back to my lack of knowledge argument in the other thread). Regardless. Let's hypothetically assume some Coptic hymns can be traced to Pharonic and pagan music. The example doesn't fit the Thanksgiving argument. When Christianity was brought to Egypt, Jewish music did not come along. There was no Christian sacred music so secular and local musical styles can be applied and "baptized". But the practice of thanking God (everyday and not just on occasions) was part of the gospel of Jesus brought to Egypt by St Mark. Why baptize a pagan festival when we already had a Christian practice? I don't disagree that giving thanks by creating a feast for the Moqattam mountain and the Incarnation is wrong. It is wrong to overlap it on Thanksgiving because now you are joining and mixing spiritual reasons with physical, society and worldly reasons. If you create a feast for the spiritual reasons only, no one would argue. Trying to baptize pagan feasts means you are not willing to let go of the pagan festivities. It says you have not fully given up the old man, the old ways or the old behavior (not individual behavior but society's behavior) Ask yourself, are you bring the value of pagan festivities up or are you bring the spiritual reasons down? I would rather have nothing to do with pagan origins or any feasts at all because I think these pagan origins bring the spirituality down. We don't have a Sham el Nessim feast in the Coptic Church. We have a feast commemorating the revelation of the resurrection to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. It is precisely because people have not given up pagan customs that we have brought down spirituality of this resurrection feast. Actually nothing. In fact, it is nearly identical. Both are currently national holidays. Sham el Nessim was an ancient Egyptian holiday to commemorate Shemu, the harvest. Both feasts commemorate the harvest. However, this does not mean a national holiday, especially if one with pagan origins, should be incorporated into Christian holidays. The pagans offered salted fish, lettuce and onions to their deities on Sham el Nessim. Should Christians eat and share in foods offered to idols? The first ecumenical council in Jerusalem settled this matter. "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." Avoiding them includes not joining in their festivities. You can argue that we have baptized these festivities and activities. If your conscious can believe that then there is no problem. But if not, you do well to avoid Sham el Nessim and instead focus on spiritual meanings like the revelation of the Resurrection.
Look, don't get me wrong. I am not advocating getting rid of fun activities, even if there is a dubious pagan origin. But there is a time for everything under the sun. A time for Christian spirituality and a time for fun. As long as there is no sin involved everything is ok. But because of our weak nature fun usually includes some form of drunkenness, gluttony, carnal thinking and lack of knowledge. If you can separate these sinful things then a baptized Thanksgiving focused on spiritual growth is perfectly fine. (I don't think it is possible). Until then, why mix the two? The only reason that I see is that we don't want to separate a time for Christian spirituality and a time for fun. We want the two packaged together. There are serious consequences when these two are packaged together. It is a sign that we have begun to relax our seriousness and frivolity shows its ugly face more and more. I don't know what you mean by a disconnect. In both threads I was trying to have people focus on deep spiritual reasons for actions and customs we find ourselves engaged in and start realizing that we should not be tied to superficial, potentially evil reasons like the Pharisees. Maybe you can show me where I may have diverged in my comments.
Why can't we simply celebrate Christmas in Church, pray the liturgy and that's it?
I don't see why you can't. You are an adult. You decide how/if you celebrate these things. What other people do or don't do is one thing. You decide what you do. Not if you don't buy a turkey. Careful not to take this distinction too far and end up in a gnostic understanding of thanksgiving (the action, not the holiday). Do we not eat together following the liturgy? (Sensible portions, of course!) Has anyone argued in this thread that it should be? If they have, I missed it. (Is that what "baptizing" the celebration means?) Does this reduction in spirituality due to pre-Christian origins also apply to the Coptic language, and the earlier Demotic and Ancient Egyptian? I'm sorry, George, but while I agree with some of your concerns it seems you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Everything in his post is what is being taught in my house.
The church has to respond to these things with positives instead of ignoring them altogether. There are children in the church who won't understand that the things you bring up and will feel depressed when their friends are talking about all the cool stuff they did on Thanksgiving. If you are a parent you would have realized this.
Now I am not saying that we participate in the same way that secular people but alternatives must be offered. That doesn't mean that they have to be Church feasts.
On a side note: Wasn't the Coptic New Year a secular celebration? If so, why accept that?
What do you suggest Orthodox Christians do on Halloween?
Question for you, Andrew:
What do you suggest Orthodox Christians do on Halloween?
One thing we certainly can't do is sit at home, tell the kids to go to sleep and act like nothing is happening. One thing we certainly must do is offer them alternatives and explain the reasoning behind them.
I have a suggestion for what to do instead of Halloween, but it doesn't really matter what my idea is so I won't get into specifics, unless you really want me to. The point is that it must be spiritual.
This is nothing new in the church. When there were secular/pagan things going on (Gladiator games) the church had alternatives (sermons/gatherings).
Kids will always tease other kids. I remember being teased because my mother had blocked MTV after that Madonna video came out where Christianity was blasphemed (I can't remember which one it is, but I remember it being very controversial and my mother storming into the room the first time it came on: "Alright, that's it! No MTV!" Hahaha. Go Mom!) You can't let bratty little kids dictate how you'll raise your kids. Teach your kids to be Christians and not bow to the world. If you teach them a strong faith, they won't "miss" the worldly things you don't want around them.
Most kids will feel left out and no parent wants to see that.
In HGBY's article on Halloween, he mentions this: And this: I personally think the church should do nothing on Halloween, Thanksgiving, Dec. 25th, and on American Easter.
Having a substitute for every pagan holiday isn't Orthodox. Protestant maybe.
Our faith has always been the same; however, the world around us keeps on changing. We don't weaken ourselves for the sake of the world.
I think parents are going to have to toughen up despite the negative reaction they get from their children. It's the only way.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12429.msg146641#msg146641 date=1319587561]
I am confident your reaction does not represent the majority of children, Jeremy.
Most kids will feel left out and no parent wants to see that.
So, what? We should sacrifice our faith for the sake of children?
You think having alternative activities for kids leads to sacrificing the faith? That's a major jump. . .please demonstrate how that happens. Those are nice quotes. . .what's your point? I never said kids should celebrate Halloween or wear costumes, etc. Well that contradicts the very article you used a few lines above. Don't pick and choose what you like, please. You seem to have left out this part:
[quote=Bishop Youssef]Attend Church, the Vespers, and the Exaltation of the Saints on October 31st. Create plays and skits for the great saints St. Mary, St. Roewis, and St. Luke. The Mother of God, the poor layman who sold salt, and the Gospel writer's life can teach us so much! Reflect upon their lives. Spiritually meet together, and then enjoy the social atmosphere of Christian fellowship, Saints' plays and Agape meal. Let's all give thanks to God for a true Christian reason to celebrate this day! Since when does offering an alternative that keeps kids off the streets equal weakening ourselves? If anything, it strengthens the kids. It's not that parents are weak and need toughening up because they are so soft. It is that kids don't understand and think they are being deprived of things. When they grow older they won't need an alternative activity.
I don't mean to say that it was. My point was that if you provide alternatives that other kids also attend, then the child isn't left out because he still plays with kids his own age. Some other kids at school might not do the same stuff, but that's really no different than how the Jewish kids don't get to celebrate Christmas. They can't really contribute to school conversations about what they got for Christmas, but they're not "left out" so much as they have their own thing that they can enjoy with other kids who also do Hannukah instead of Christmas.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=12429.msg146641#msg146641 date=1319587561]
I am confident your reaction does not represent the majority of children, Jeremy.
Most kids will feel left out and no parent wants to see that.
I agree to a certain extent. . .it does depend on what age group. But alternatives are sometimes necessary when the secular activities are harming the children who don't understand why all their friends are running around and having fun while they are forced to go to bed. For a 5 year old that is devastating.
For those who think it is unOrthodox to provide alternatives read this:
[quote=Fr. John Moses]n the strictly Orthodox early Celtic Church, the holy Fathers tried to counteract this pagan new year festival that honored the Lord of Death, by establishing the Feast of All Saints on the same day. (It differs in the East, where the Feast of All Saints is celebrated on the Sunday following Pentecost). The custom of the Celtic Church was for the faithful Christians to attend a vigil service and a morning celebration of the Holy Eucharist. This custom created the term Halloween. The Old English of "All Hallow E'en", i.e., the eve commemorating all those who were hallowed (sanctified) became Halloween. . .
The ancient Slavic counterpart to Halloween in ancient Russia was Navy Dien' (Old Slavonic for the dead "nav" ), which was also called Radunitsa and celebrated in the spring. To supplant it, the Eastern Church attached this feast to Easter, for celebration on Tuesday of Saint Thomas ' Week (second week after Easter). The Church also changed the name of the feast into Radonitsa, from Russian "radost" - joy, of Easter and of the resurrection from the dead of the whole manhood of Jesus Christ. Gradually Radunitsa yielded to Easter's greater importance and became less popular. And many dark practices from old Russian pagan feasts (Semik, Kupalo, Rusalia and some aspects of the Maslennitsa) still survived till the beginning of our century. . .
His conclusion is one I agree with:
[quote=Fr. John Moses]". . .to piously say to our beloved pagans that we don't celebrate because we are "not of this world" (i.e. Orthodox) is laughable if we are as worldly as they are. By worldly, I don't mean that we participate in the gross sins of the flesh. But if we are also hurried, concerned with success, fretting over money, fretting over possessions, constantly seeking entertainment, constantly filling our lives with noise, putting God in a Sunday morning box, finding little place for Him in the weekday cycle of work and family - then they will see the truth - we are just as pagan as they are. Our protests about Halloween will fail to convince anyone. . .
So, I don't participate, but with that alone, I shouldn't congratulate myself. What is more important is that I attain to stillness and salvation. If I do, "ten thousand around me will be saved." I doubt that loudly protesting Halloween will accomplish as much.
Does this reduction in spirituality due to pre-Christian origins also apply to the Coptic language, and the earlier Demotic and Ancient Egyptian? I'm sorry, George, but while I agree with some of your concerns it seems you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
No there is no reduction in spirituality that should apply to the Coptic language for many reasons. First, the Coptic language is not exclusively owned by the Coptic religion. The Coptic language was used by Christians, Jews, Pagans, together. There is an inherit separation of language and religion. Secondly, all languages inherently borrow, mix, code-switch, die, "give birth" to a daughter language or evolve from a "genetically" similar language. This is how languages are classified. We can't expect the Coptic language to be an exception in a linguistic evolution from Ancient Egyptian, Demotic, Pre-Coptic, Greek bilingualism because of spirituality. Thirdly, there is no "evil" linguistic behavior but there is evil and sinful behavior in festivities.
I hope this helps?
You asked what do I propose. I propose we have alternatives, but not so focused on similarities with secular festivities. I propose we do these alternatives in a purely spiritual matter without associating them exclusively to a special date. Give gifts to people on many days, not just Christmas. Give thanks to God for a good harvest every day, not just on Thanksgiving. Have an agape meal with people on Thanksgiving, but also have it on a random Sunday. And foremost, every feast must include repentance.
Andrew, alternatives are ok if they are completely spiritual feasts. But if they are seen as alternatives, then they will lose their spirituality. Ask yourself if you dressed up as saints, play skits of St Mary, St Roweis, St Luke, attend a spiritual gathering, and have an agape meal on October 31st because these are all good spiritual deeds, would you do these exact things on any other day than October 31st? Would you ever do this on any other day that is not associated with Halloween? If not, then the spirituality will eventually decrease because it will always be seen as an alternative to Halloween, rather than a feast to thank God and commemorate these saints.
You asked what do I propose. I propose we have alternatives, but not so focused on similarities with secular festivities. I propose we do these alternatives in a purely spiritual matter without associating them exclusively to a special date. Give gifts to people on many days, not just Christmas. Give thanks to God for a good harvest every day, not just on Thanksgiving. Have an agape meal with people on Thanksgiving, but also have it on a random Sunday. And foremost, every feast must include repentance.
I agree, for the most part. We just need to keep in mind that some of us are weak and need specific days and occasions to arouse our spirit.
So I wondered, as I think it is right to wonder, if this should apply to everything with "pagan" origins. I don't see the great difference between a language and a fest, in this case, as it is all a vehicle for the expression of culture and values, so it is a matter of how you use them -- a festival that has been "baptized" to purge the pre-Christian practices associated with it and replace them with celebration of the God Christ or the saints or what have you is no different than a language becoming the vehicle for the spread of the truth of God where it had once been a tool to worship false gods.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12429.msg146655#msg146655 date=1319599439]
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=12429.msg146625#msg146625 date=1319584886]
Does this reduction in spirituality due to pre-Christian origins also apply to the Coptic language, and the earlier Demotic and Ancient Egyptian? I'm sorry, George, but while I agree with some of your concerns it seems you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
No there is no reduction in spirituality that should apply to the Coptic language for many reasons. First, the Coptic language is not exclusively owned by the Coptic religion. The Coptic language was used by Christians, Jews, Pagans, together. There is an inherit separation of language and religion. Secondly, all languages inherently borrow, mix, code-switch, die, "give birth" to a daughter language or evolve from a "genetically" similar language. This is how languages are classified. We can't expect the Coptic language to be an exception in a linguistic evolution from Ancient Egyptian, Demotic, Pre-Coptic, Greek bilingualism because of spirituality. Thirdly, there is no "evil" linguistic behavior but there is evil and sinful behavior in festivities.
I hope this helps?
Sham ennisim (will find its proper Coptic spelling later) is not a pagan festivity anymore. I can't remember the details of the story, but there was an emperor, or a king, who questioned the resurrection and how Christ can get out of a sealed tomb, and one of his subordinates took an egg, and showed him how the chick gets out of the sealed egg, and that is why it has been "consecrated" as a partly Christian festivity. Eating fesi7' and onions is a continuation of an olden tradition, that it doesn't risk us offering food for idols because of our consciences being wholly Christian... however, I would agree with Remnkemi that the day lost some of its spirituality and the fun has been an end in itself. I would argue however that this is mainly found in the diaspora, but to a lesser extent in Egypt, for people have always been instructed very clearly not to go out playing unless they come to the Liturgy in the morning (early morning for my liking) from 6.00 - 8.00.
Oujai qen `P[C
But using your example, if Coptic has pagan words in its vocabulary, then I can choose not to use them when speaking of Christianity. There's nothing wrong with that. But when speaking of the truth of God, it would be wrong to use specific pagan Coptic words. It would be even more of a sin to be frivolous about its use and consider it "not a big" deal to call Jesus Christ "Ra" or "The New Amenhotep" in the name of baptizing pagan culture or pagan vocabulary. This is different than what you're describing. But this is what I was trying to express.
I love this Kumbaya mood after a long disagreement on tasbeha. Quite refreshing.
Alright back to important business: Polygamy. I have no questions/comments so far. Etfadal, Remnkemi.