My friend-

As I was asked about revenge I thought i’d put it to everyone and see what your opinions are?

Sooo…

From me first

What society young and old think about revenge…if you seek revenge you have a lot of controversial history and probably a good dose of primitive genes spurring you on!

Revenge is a logical fallacy by design the same as two wrongs make a right, this is an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed, in its modern sense, is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument ).

Some still believe that the injury inflicted in revenge should be greater than the original one, as a punitive measure. Revenge has been a popular theme for art and culture throughout history as humans are continually fascinated by it. Many actually feel better after watching a revenge or vigilante movie without ever realising exactly what they are programming their brain to actually believe…I wish I had those balls! Some psychologists have found that the thwarted psychological expectation of revenge may lead to issues of victimhood.

An eye for an eye – At the root of the non-Biblical form of this principle is the belief that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retaliation for an offended party. It defined and restricted the extent of retaliation

The Code of Hammurabi (also known as Codex Hammurabi) created 1760BC Babylon

(revenge) laws written in cuneiform (tablet) script. The text contains a list of crimes and their various punishments, as well as settlements for common disputes and guidelines for citizens’ conduct. The Code does not provide opportunity for explanation or excuses, though it does imply one’s right to present evidence. The stele (tablet) was openly displayed for all to see; thus, no man could plead ignorance of the law as an excuse. Scholars, however, presume that few people could read in that era, as literacy was primarily the domain of scribes.

Philosopher Martin Nussnaum has written: The primitive sense of the just—remarkably constant from several ancient cultures to modern institutions…—starts from the notion that a human life…is a vulnerable thing, a thing that can be invaded, wounded, violated by another’s act in many ways. For this penetration, the only remedy that seems appropriate is a counter invasion, equally deliberate, equally grave. And to right the balance truly, the retribution must be exactly, strictly proportional to the original encroachment.

So, you can get your revenge, take whatever punishment the law has decided fitting should you cross over the line into a criminal act and whilst in prison sit and stew over how you were still right all along or sit and ‘think’, which is why self recrimination is sweeter, about how you must be to blame as you attract exactly what you choose to experience in this life, (negative shadow feeds on yours and others misery) you are responsible for everything positive and negative you attract, finally, coming to what is an obvious conclusion, everything negative that happens to me is my own fault, I attracted it therefore in the future I will choose to live in the positive lane where revenge is an unecessary signpost?

Your thoughts now…?

Message me back and I’ll give you the updates asap!

Hope you are all having a great start to 2008!

Julles

my reply:
Well….. I think revenge is a futile attempt to right an old pain or suffering event and it is not a truly logical negative feeling- but a spiraling one. Someone does you wrong… you retaliate in revenge… they retaliate to your retaliation. It’s lose lose. You are hurt. Then you continue in that pain in a rush to cause equal, or equal plus 1 pain- You will still have the initial injury. So wasting your energy in revenge instead of focusing your energy on repairing your injury, you can not heal to the level you might could had you used better discipline and judgement.

I can’t help but think even if who ever you vent your revenge on will just keep the black snow ball of energy growing as they now see themselves as the injured party.

I’m not sure I believe that we draw the bad to us by our own energy any more than I think we are more likely to draw light and good by virtue of how we live- I think life is a trial and error. Live and learn scenario. Like a child learning about an open flame.

Revenge, while satisfying in my Wily Coyote fantasy of dropping my agitator tied to an anvil from a cliff into a patch of cactus 200 feet down in my mind gives me a certain feeling of power and satisfaction- the reality of forming actions with intention of hurting someone is soul sucking and makes me weary to even think about it as a plan of action.

Revenge is a dark source in my opinion- and without merit.

Living in the Image of God
Jewish law envisions a future in which all human beings are treated as infinitely valuable, equal, and unique
The following is the first in a two-part series:

There is a fundamental principle of Judaism that accounts for all Jewish ethics, including the obligation to love your neighbor as yourself. The Talmudic sage Ben Azzai suggests that this axiom is the Torah’s statement that “God created the human being in God’s image … man and woman God created them.” The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 37a) spells out the implications of this concept. Judaism holds that–to paraphrase the American Declaration of Independence–all humans are created in the image of God, and therefore they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and dignities, among which are infinite value, equality and uniqueness. Let’s explore what these three concepts really mean.

INFINITE VALUE: An image of man has a finite value. A Picasso sold for $30,000,000 plus; a Van Gogh for $82.5 million. But an image created by God is worth incomparably more; it is of infinite value. That is why the Talmud states that “To save one life is equivalent to saving a whole world.”

If a life is infinitely valuable, then it must be treated with great concern and care. No precious work of art would be left outside, exposed to the elements. Thus no image of God should ever be allowed to lie on the street, homeless and freezing during winter. Similarly, it is worth spending hundreds of thousands, and indeed millions of dollars, to medically treat and save the life of an infinitely valuable person–meaning, everyone.

EQUALITY: In the Jewish tradition, God is described in images ranging from a powerful warrior to a comforting mother. But it is understood that no image is literal or fixed, and no image is intrinsically superior to the other. To present an image of God as the preferred (or fixed) image of God is idolatry. All images of God (that is, all humans) are equal. Thus the claim that whites are superior to blacks, or males are preferred to women, or members of one religion are truly the image of God and the others are not, is equivalent to idolatry.

UNIQUENESS: Images of man are meant to be replicable. The normal assumption of all stamps, all coins, all reproduced photographs is that one is identical to the next; that is because they are images created by human beings. However, says the Talmud, an image created by God has this distinction: The Holy One creates all human beings from one mold (Adam and Eve), yet each one is different from the other. Not even identical twins are identical. To see people through stereotypes violates the fundamental dignity of the other person as a unique image of God.

The world that we inhabit degrades these fundamental dignities. Poverty and discrimination, legalized slavery and oppression, cultural stereotyping, and human neglect are rampant–but they are incompatible with the dignities of the image of God. Therefore, the Jewish tradition insists that this status quo be fundamentally restructured. We are commanded to work for tikkun olam, to perfect and transform the world until it fully respects the image of God in every human being. We must overcome poverty and hunger, which contradict the infinite value of the individual. We must overcome oppression, because racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc., all deny the equality of the other. We must overcome war, which is essentially fought by destroying infinitely valuable images of God with abandon. That is why Isaiah prophesied that “they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and they will not learn war anymore.” Isaiah promises that death itself, the ultimate denial of our unique, irreplaceable value, “will be swallowed up in eternity,” that is, overcome.

In short, the Jewish dream of tikkun olam includes the ultimate triumph of life over death and the realization of a world in which the full dignities of every individual are respected, nurtured, and developed. This is the Messianic Age in Jewish tradition. Incorporated into Christianity, into Western culture, and into certain variants of Islam, the Jewish revolutionary promise of world transformation has proven to be extraordinarily liberating and shattering of the status quo.

How shall we live until the final perfection is achieved? The answer of Jewish law and tradition is that we should respect the image of God to the maximum possible degree in all our conduct. Tzedakah, the obligation to help the poor and the hungry, stems from the fact that the needy are equal and infinitely valuable. Lashon hara (evil speech) is prohibited (even if the facts asserted are true) because the talk degrades the image of God in another other person. Sexuality is the search for physical and emotional confirmation of our uniqueness and infinite value–as well as that of the other. Thus, all mitzvot (commandments) can be seen as attempts to nurture the dignity of every human being in the image of God. Judaism is the way of life of Jewry, the community that tries to live by this higher standard–until we achieve tikkun olam, the perfection that will make universal the infinite value, equality, and uniqueness of all human beings.

from belief net.

It happens every year, on the last night of the October month. From the darkness of the streets all around the world, strange ghoulish creatures emerge and walk amongst us, gathering with the evil spirits, demons, and……….. fairy princesses? That's right. We all know Halloween. A fun filled, exciting, energetic, and sometimes frightful night when people of all ages stroll down the lane, adorned with all manners of costume and fancy dress. Young children go from door to door, saying the magic words and receiving scrumptious candy in return.

Wild parties are in full swing all the way till the next morning, while others prefer to celebrate Halloween in a more traditional manner.

But, what is the “traditional” manner?

How did the generations before packaged candy and store bought costumes celebrate it? What exactly is the meaning and purpose behind the well known symbols such as the Jack-o-lantern?

We all know that Halloween did not originate in the US, but what was it like before?

Halloween has a rich and complex history, compiled from several different cultural traditions and celebrations. Several historians agree that researching into the origins of Halloween, can be a rather difficult task.

Origins:

It is a well known fact, that most modern celebrations and holidays, have usually not just originated from one single ancient custom or tradition alone. It takes a large compilation that has been growing and developing throughout history, incorporating many different cultures and beliefs, into one.

The origins of Halloween are difficult to trace, and even today many countries celebrate it differently from the more popular way, and even have different titles for basically the same holiday.

On this note, let me make you aware, that it is probably impossible to track and list every single tradition that was incorporated into Halloween.

Samhain

From what historians can gather from research, one of the earliest contributors to our modern day Halloween, is the ancient Celtic pagan festival, Samhain. Samhain (pronounced “sow-en”) was an agricultural celebration that marked the end of summer, also marking the harvest of the summer crops. Around this time, wheats, corn, barley, and livestock were brought in to be stored for the bitter winter months to come. It also was considered, a night of supernatural mayhem, when the dead would revisit the earth, and dark spirits would emerge from the shadows and run amuck.1 2

It at first, was considered to be the “Celtic New Year”, but recent debates have put that theory to question.

Several cultures from several time periods most likely celebrated this festival, due to speculation that the Celtic druids were among the first to practice it. And of course, the Celts later spread out to become many other nations. With time, different traditions were most likely added into the intricate weave work of the festival.

Because of this, many historians have found it rather difficult to pinpoint the exact practices at certain periods. It has always been a very frustrating search. We can only guess how far certain aspects go back.

The custom of ritualistic bonfires is one which has seemed to go on for quite a few centuries, and still lives even today in some countries and in different holidays. Bonfires were used by the Celts as protection against the evil spirits that roamed, while also serving as a guide home to the recently departed. Two bonfires could also be built close to the other, and the members of the community would walk themselves as well as livestock in between them as a symbol of purification.3 We have accounts from many ancient Roman sources, such as Julius Caesar, Diodorus, Strabo, and Pliny the Elder, who mention several rituals that involve such practices, but mainly concerning human sacrifice weaved within.4

Now, the concept of human sacrifice around Samhain is not completely factual, since none of the old Irish folklore speak of such deeds, nor the writings of St. Patrick, who had succeeded in introducing Christianity to nearly all of pagan Ireland.5

But the idea is certainly not entirely ruled out. It is quite possible that the druids did engage in human sacrifice, but if they did, it seems that it was not a common practice.

Because of the firm belief that the barrier between worlds was thin around Samhain, many who celebrated it prepared their homes to ward off unfriendly demons and imps, and to receive the friendly spirits of the departed. Food was set out for them, the house kept warm with fires (which usually were lighted after the local bonfires), poetry and stories were performed to entertain them, and the doors were not locked.6

Similar customs were observed in England, on All Souls Day.7

Divination is a common folklore custom which has lasted throughout much of history, and still survives in more rural places in the world which still keep such practices alive. Usually, several methods were used to determine rather important or critical things such as the success of the next crop, the identity of a future spouse, or perhaps how much riches one could expect in their life.8 Today, these customs in mainstream culture are no longer seen as vital, but are used as trivial party games for entertainment.

On that subject, it is interesting to note how much more “trivial” the old customs and traditions have become to modern man. With such advancement in technology and with so many considering the belief in “spirits” to be nothing more than fairy tale, our society today no longer truly realizes the importance of such old practices that they take for granted.

Most of us no longer grow our own food and raise our own livestock, having the convenience of the grocery market. The people of old did not have these things, and used such celebrations as Samhain to mark these events that were vital for survival.

All Saint's/Souls Day

All Saint's Day, sometimes known as All Hallows or Hallowmas is basically what it sounds like. It is a day to commemorate all saints, known and unknown to the world. Halloween falls the day before, hence why it is sometimes referred to as “All Hallows Eve”.9

All Souls Day, which falls the day afterwards, on November 2, is surprisingly similar in customs to All Saint's Day, however placing more emphasis on all departed souls.

We mention these particular holidays due to the fact that they are closely tied to Halloween, and have in a small way contributed to it.

Now then, it has always been highly debated on whether or not Halloween is actually a pagan, or Christian holiday. The fact of the matter is, it is highly likely that the pagan festival of Samhain, was established long before the Christian tradition of All Hallows Eve, and Hallowmas, a.k.a, Halloween and All Saint's Day.

However, the name, “Halloween”, was of Christian origin. It literally means, the evening before All Hallows Day. Therefore, if you wanted to get really technical…… oh never mind.

The traditions and customs of All Saint's Day are generally very basic, though the way they are preformed usually differ from country to country. This also applies to its sister feast day, All Souls Day. As a matter of fact, they both are nearly identical in their customs and themes. The term “Hallowtide” is used to connect all three of the celebrations, Halloween, All Saint's Day, and All Souls Day.

I am going to directly quote two articles concerning the subject, since I feel this woman put the bare facts quite nicely. From there, I will present other theories and little tidbits.

“This feast that we know as All Saint's Day originated as a feast of All Martyrs, sometime in the 4th century. At first it was celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost. It came to be observed on May 13 when Pope St. Boniface IV (608-615) restored and rebuilt for use as a Christian church an ancient Roman temple which pagan Rome had dedicated to "all gods", the Pantheon. The pope re-buried the bones of many martyrs there, and dedicated this Church to the Mother of God and all the Holy Martyrs on May 13, 610.

About a hundred years later, Pope Gregory III (731-741) consecrated a new chapel in the basilica of St. Peter to all saints (not just to the martyrs) on November 1, and he fixed the anniversary of this dedication as the date of the feast.

A century after that, Pope Gregory IV (827-844) extended the celebration of All Saints to November 1 for the entire Church.

The vigil of this important feast, All Saint's Eve, Hallowe'en, was apparently observed as early as the feast itself.

Ever since then — for more than a millennium — the entire Church has celebrated the feast of All Saints on November 1st, and, of course, Hallowe'en on October 31.

It is a principal feast of the Catholic Church. It is a holy day of obligation, which means that all Catholics are to attend Mass on that day.”10

“The tradition in the Church of having Masses said for the dead began in the earliest times. The pre-Christian Roman religion, which held that some form of life continued after death, gave votive offerings to the gods for the dead at three specified times: the third, seventh and thirtieth day after death. This practice of praying for the departed on these same days was adopted ("inculturated") by the early Christians — and continued in the Church for nearly 2000 years: the Church offered Masses for the deceased person on the third, seventh and thirtieth day after death.

Beginning in the year 998, All souls — the "faithful departed" — were officially remembered in the Church's prayers on the evening of November 1, and with Requiem Masses, Masses for the dead, on November 2. All Souls Day is now a feast of the universal Church. (The word "requiem" is Latin for "rest".) Following the Second Vatican Council, all Masses celebrated on All Saints day observe that feast, not "All souls". Three Masses may still be said on All Souls Day. The first two are Masses for Burial, and the third is a Mass for the Dead. Black vestments may be worn on this day.”11

When we look back on all three of the celebrations of Hallowtide, we realize that all three share very similar characteristics, mainly that they all are based around honoring the dead. The ancient Celts would remember their dead through the customs I have mentioned in Samhain. All Saint's Day was created to honor all saints and martyrs. And All Souls Day is in remembrance of all faithful departed. Another well known holiday that comes to mind in this context, is “Dia De Los Muertos”, or more popularly known as “Day of the Dead”.

I mentioned earlier that the customs are fairly basic. In my search I have found it difficult to find a wide variety of practices for the feast days. All Souls Day, however, seems to have a few more than its sister holiday. Church attendance is an important part of Hallowtide, as well as visiting the graves of loved ones and taking time to remember them. The basic plan right there. But, in Spain, another tradition is the performance of the play Don Juan Tenorio on All Saint's Day. In the Philippines, communities will visit the graves of relatives and spend the day there, bringing food and…. well, basically have a picnic of sorts.12

All Souls Day, on the other hand, not only has most of these elements, but also has been closely connected with many pagan practices that are extremely similar, such as the ones I have mentioned in Samhain. In most of Europe, such customs as leaving out food for the dead, lighting candles and leaving them on the windowsills, and making special “soul cakes” were practiced, particularly in England before the Protestant Reformation.13 We can also find some fragments of the famous “Trick or Treat” ritual beginning here, with the practice of Soul Caking, which involved beggars and children going from door to door, asking for alms or specially prepared “soul cakes”, which involved reciting a rhyme asking for “mercy on all Christian souls for a soul cake”. It was believed that with each cake consumed, a soul would be released from purgatory.14

In England, the rituals of Hallowtide came under attack during the sixteenth century, from Protestants who were disturbed by the notion that the living could influence the fate of the dead, or vice versa. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer attempted to abolish the ringing of the bells for the dead in 1546. But Henry the 8'th refused to sign the edit, believing it might jeopardize a potential rapprochement with France and the Holy Roman Empire. His more Protestant son, Edward the 6'th, had fewer reservations. His royal commissions successfully enforced a ban in 1548, with only a few parishes defying the injunction. The rituals of Hallow mass were revived briefly under his Catholic successor, Mary, but they were services commemorating the dead were dropped from the litany of 1559.15

In what you could call a small retaliation of the Catholics, the holiday known as “Bonfire Night” of “Guy Fawkes Day” was established, which is the next avenue we shall explore.

Guy Fawkes Day

November 5'th….1605… a group of Catholic conspirators attempt to wreck havoc upon the Protestant English State by blowing up the Palace of Westminster, also known as the Houses of Parliament. Months of preparation have gone into this, the Gunpowder Plot. However, a letter has been sent to Lord Baron Monteagle, a Catholic supporter who was to attend the opening ceremony for the building, in hopes that he would take heed and not attend. This letter was shown to authorities, and in the early morning of this fateful day, the conspirators were apprehended.16

This day, was made a day of celebration, in honor of the English “freedom” from the Catholic Church. It is still celebrated today, though with a few changes for more politically correct reasons.

We make mention of this holiday, to note some of the similarities to our modern Halloween, as well as its connection to Halloween when it skipped over to America with the Irish immigrants. The traditions have generally remained unchanged. English citizens would build bonfires, dress rag dolls and even themselves as tatterdemalion “Guys” and would beg for money to purchase fireworks.17 The tradition of burning effigies of “Guy” and Pope Paul V fell out of the holiday, except it is still a common practice in the city of Lewes, where the it seems to have a little more meaning. The rowdy, devilish, prank-like atmosphere of Halloween was slightly influenced by this celebration in my opinion, and many historians seem to agree. Guy Fawkes Day was already well established in America, and especially Canada when the Irish migrated during the Potato Famine of the 1840's.

Legends and Symbols

We shall now take a closer look into some of the symbols associated with Halloween, and the myths that began them. Today we see so many various figures that have been tied with the holiday, in a whole manner of interpretations. They are everywhere, in stories, movies, party decor and even are brought back to life through costumes. The undisputed king of them all, would have to be the Jack-o-Lantern.

This legendary symbol of Halloween, has been present for centuries, though started out simply as hallowing out a vegetable (turnips mainly), so that they may be used as lanterns. I am not entirely certain of the exact meaning behind the early tradition. However, it did not take on the name of the Jack-o-Lantern until quite later. 18 The name itself is related to several meanings, one of which is the name of a man in an old Irish legend, who's tale is now the most popular description for the custom of carving pumpkins. Jack was a greedy, lazy, yet clever Irishman, who tricked the devil into keeping him out of hell. But because of his rather mean nature, he was not permitted into heaven, and the devil kept his promise of not permitting him entrance into hell. There are several different versions of this story. In one, Jack is thrown a coal from the bitter and angry devil, and he then put it into a hallowed turnip, doomed to wander the underworld as a ghost with that one coal to light his way. In another, Jack ingested the coal, lighting his entire head into flames. This version would (in a weird way) explain the appearance of most characters who seem to share characteristics of the legend. Another legend of similar characteristics, is that of the blacksmith Will. He too leads a wicked life, and is not permitted into neither heaven nor hell, and is given a coal to light his way, which he uses to guide foolish travelers into bogs to drown. This legend was sprouted from the Will o' the wisp phenomena, in which strange ghostly lights can be seen flickering over bogs and lakes.19

The Jack-o-Lantern, also seems to be seen as the “Spirit of Halloween”, as seen through it's popularity, and through characters given that title usually having a carved pumpkin for a head.

Another quite well known figure we see, is the typical vampire, or to be more specific, the infamous Count Dracula. We all know him. He began as a character from the novel written by Bram Stoker in 1897, and was then swept up into the world of Hollywood to become a world famous icon, in a version of the story that was a tad different in a few ways, but none the less, left quite an impression on American culture. The vampire itself, has gone through many changes throughout history. Tales of blood drinking beings are found in nearly every culture around the world, each different in some way or another, and have been in folklore for centuries past. The Babylonian Lilu, a nocturnal demonic spirit, would hunt for babies and/or pregnant women. In India, the vetalas, a ghoulish-like creature, was known for it's trait of hanging upside down in trees in cemeteries. The hopping corpse of China, was also similar, though would feed on life essence as opposed to blood. 20 Well. Call them what you want, but ask a random person on the street what they think a vampire is, and you will most definitely get the romanticized, stereo-typical version, now the dominate definition thanks to Bram Stoker, Bela Lugosi, and Anne Rice. Dracula has been credited as one of the most played roles in movie history, with an estimated 160 films as of 2004 with that character as the main.

Two other phenomenally popular Halloween characters that stand alongside the Count in the world of monster horror, are Frankenstein's Monster, and The Wolf Man. Frankenstein's Monster, was sprouted from another famous horror novel, written by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly in 1818, entitled, Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Mary was a young, intelligent writer, and her and her husband were challenged by George Gordon Byron while on vacation at his estate, to a horror story writing contest. Mary complied, writing her story based upon a dream she had had, which she described in these words:

“My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie…I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together—I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half-vital motion…What terrified me will terrify others; and I need only describe the specter which had haunted my midnight pillow.”21

This tale of the terrors of playing god, was later adapted into one of the classic monster motion pictures of Universal Studios, though hardly resembled the original idea in any way. Shelly's monster, was much more intelligent and thoughtful in her novel, unlike that in the movie, and the storyline had several drastic changes.

The Wolf Man, was another character made popular by the movies, but the legend itself is quite ancient. Werewolves (or shape shifters if you will), like vampires, have been seen all throughout history, and have different appearances and habits depending on the cultures. But usually, shape shifters are seen as merciless and thoughtless, prone to devouring any living thing in its way without hesitation. The victim seems to completely take on every animalistic trait, including a supernatural surge in strength and agility. Transformation has always been portrayed as a painful process, in movies and stories.

Though it is perhaps not among the most well known of Halloween legends, The Headless Horseman is yet another eerie figure I would like to mention. His story was simple. A Hessian mercenary, hired by the British during the American Revolutionary War, who lost his head during battle. In the short story itself, written by Washington Irving, a pompous school master, Ichabod Crane, is transferred to the little Dutch settlement of Tarry Town, New York, in a secluded glen named Sleepy Hallow, where he falls for the wealthy Katrina Van Tassel, but finds competition with the town bully, Brom Bones. At a Halloween party, Brom scares Ichabod with a local ghost story about the Headless Horseman, saying that he roams the forest which Ichabod must cross through that night to get home. Needless to say, he runs across the “ghost”, and is never seen again. It is not ever made clear what happened to him, or if it actually was the ghost. The legend of The Headless Horseman later was adapted into a Disney Cartoon, and a horror/comedy by Tim Burton.

Other symbols connected to Halloween, have deep roots in death, magic, mystery, horror and legend. From out study of the old pagan Samhain, it is quite obvious that it contributed to these aspects, though in a way has been tainted into a more horrific light, as opposed to the honoring and respect of the dead. Ghosts and ghouls, skeletons and mummies, demons and witches. They all hold these attributes.

But in this sea of terrifying visions of the creatures of night, is the commercial aspect of our Halloween, which gives the whole thing a sense of fun and excitement, as well as thrills and even comedy on occasion. It is my opinion, that now one can really not live without the other. The ancient, bone chilling tales of old combined with the modern, truly create an enjoyable holiday.

From Age Old Customs to

Commercialized Fright Night.

We have now come to much more recognizable areas. The fogs of uncertainty in our search are slowly clearing, and we now will be mostly addressing Halloween's evolution in America, where all of these different celebrations are thrown into one giant cauldron, and blended with other new ingredients to create what we know today.

Introducing!

“Halloween did not become a holiday in America until the 19th century, where lingering Puritan tradition meant even Christmas was scarcely observed before the 1800s. North American almanacs of the late 18th and early 19th centuries make no mention of Halloween in their lists of holidays. The transatlantic migration of nearly two million Irish following the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849) brought the holiday and its customs to America.”22

Because of the deep rooted Protestant and Puritan religion of early America, Halloween was widely rejected and many Irish/Scottish immigrants were persecuted for its celebration. Private indoor parties with family and friends continued however, and eventually, the upper class societies made efforts to cast it as an honoring of their heritage, rather than a night of “supernatural customs”. This, is where the more party-like atmosphere of modern day Halloween came into play. It was made more “respectable” through masquerade balls, dances and poetry.23

So, Halloween was now celebrated in three different ways. First class politicians and the wealthy would have grand parties, almost completely throwing the old traditions out the window. Middle class citizens continued to have nice, quiet gatherings in the home, keeping many of the traditions alive, such as bobbing for apples and several of the divination games. And last but not least, the third class working families, who brought out the more rough side of the holiday with pranks that ranged in mischief and brutality.

Now, put all of those three ways of celebrating it together, and we get the basic blueprints of our beloved Halloween.

The Problem with Pranks

As we have noted, pranks seemed to become a part of Halloween at an early age in America, and it is highly likely that it might have been a part of the more ancient celebrations. I'm quite sure there was an occasional group of young boys throughout history that would delight in causing trouble on this night. The great thing about creating mischief on Halloween, (especially back in the days when superstitions where much more serious and taken quite literally) was that you wouldn't get into too much trouble. Many stories about fiendish fairies and devils running about the place and causing havoc, where a great cover up for much more “mortal” mischief makers.

Hardcore Halloween revelry was never really a problem until the late nineteenth century. Before then, it was mostly tolerated, yet monitored by police officials none the less. Eventually, things just got out of hand. Things such as throwing bags of flour at passing citizens, or tearing down a fence or two where usually passed over, maybe with a stern warning, but “tricks” such as oiling railroad tracks, lighting up huge bonfires, or throwing stones at people could land you in serious trouble.24

There are many grisly stories concerning the action taken against more serious pranksters. By the twentieth century, the police were much more strict on how “merry” you could get, and several respectable communities and societies fought for a more safe Halloween. This is what led America, into making such traditions as Trick-or-Treating, Halloween parades and parties, and harvest festivals, into the main events for the holiday.

These activities were designed so that everyone could participate and have fun, and it worked for the most part, to make Halloween much more “family” oriented.

Did this remove the more “spooky” atmosphere out of Halloween?

Many seem to think so.

But all in all, it is my opinion, that Halloween improved with rules.

Costumes, Candy, Commercialization

Although wearing costumes and the famous Trick-or-Treat tradition did not really take firm root into Halloween until the twentieth century, many aspects of it have been seen all throughout history and culture, from the gruliks and skeklers of the Shetland Isles, who would dress themselves in animal skins and entertain those they begged from25, to the “souling” traditions of Medevil Brittan. Even the begging of money for fireworks on Guy Fawkes Night holds similar characteristics. But ultimately, it had never been done exactly like it's done today.

The “treats” also have obviously changed over the centuries, though in some more rural parts of the world, more wholesome, natural food is still handed out. Before the convenience of packaged candies and chocolate bars, things such as seasonal fruit, nuts and even money where given.

But with every nationwide holiday, comes those who only can see dollar signs.

By the twentieth century, Halloween was well ingrained into American culture, and commercialization began, quite possibly with Halloween postcards, which were most popular between 1905 and 1915, and sported hundreds of designs. “Dennison Manufacturing Company, which published its first Hallowe'en catalog in 1909, and the Beistle Company were pioneers in commercially made Halloween decorations, particularly die-cut paper items. German manufacturers specialized in Halloween figurines that were exported to America in the period between the two world wars.”26

Mass production of Halloween costumes and candy did not really happen until the 1930's, and the famous “Trick-or-Treat” tradition did not become a permanent and central part until the 1950's, when it was created to try and draw children's attention away from causing pranks as we noted earlier.

I now make mention of the “Poisoned Candy Scare” of the 1970's and 80's, an event which frankly was blown way out of proportion. Why do I mention it then? Because I found this description to be very profound concerning the psychology of the matter, despite it being minor.

“The original festival of Samhain, as Santino notes, was fundamentally a pagan holiday, focusing on the passage of the recent dead from this world to the next. As Christianity replaced older religions, these spirits were transmuted from neutral or good beings to evil ones, and the season became a rich one for the telling of supernatural legends. To some extent, as Degh has found, this storytelling tradition remains very strong in rural America, though it now incorporates non supernatural horror stories and anti-legends in which frightening events are exposed as hoaxes or misperceptions of mundane objects. The season's marginality has recently brought forth two complexes of legends and beliefs in which deranged or sadistic adults of this world, not supernatural spirits, endanger children. These complexes include real-life “ostensive” actions, in which people act out (or seem to act out) such narrative scenarios. The earlier of these is “The Razor Blade in the Apple,” involving children who receive poisonous or booby-trapped trick-or-treat goodies from strangers; it appeared during the mid-1960's. The later complex, “The Satanic Child Sacrifice,” described cults who planned to abduct and murder a young child on Halloween as part of a ritual ceremony; this showed up sporadically in the mid-1970's before becoming a nationwide panic in 1987-88. The precise origin of the razor blades legend is unclear, though it was given impetus by three nationally publicized cases in which poisoned treats were actually found.”27

Interesting to note, however, that most of the real cases never seemed to involve any sort of “Satanic activity”.

By the 1990's, Halloween was well on it's way to becoming one of the biggest money making holidays for the commercial industry. A whole manner of various items were being created, ranging from simple window stickers to elaborate fog machines. Many ancient legends were incorporated and used as symbols, as we have seen, which have now become Halloween mascots so to speak.

Halloween, grew.

Hollywood Halloween

With such an intriguing, mysterious, dark and thrilling holiday such as Halloween growing more and more popular in the American culture, it was no surprise that the entertainment industry decided to jump into the fun. Bone chilling novels and comics have been an important part of the modern Halloween for decades now, receiving immense popularity and adding more to the visions of the public. But nothing every added permanent visions like the mother of entertainment, Hollywood. Horror movies have gained quite a vast amount of fame, and the genre itself is viewed as a must see around this time of year. This being said, it is a little difficult to give a detailed definition of a “Halloween movie”, since there are so many horror films out there today. Well, because of this factor, I am only going to make mention of the most popular, most Halloween related films.

And I believe it is fitting, to begin with the cult classic of 1978, Halloween.

This independent horror movie, captured millions, and did surprisingly well, becoming a model for future slasher film makers. Even more surprising, was the fact that Halloween really did not have an excessive amount of visual gore, yet managed to be terrifying none the less. The directing style of John Carpenter resembled that of the thriller master Hitchcock, making the mood much more intense. Originally, the movie was going to be titled, The Babysitter Murders, but was soon changed, due to the notion that this would take place on Halloween. The plot goes as follows.

On October 31, 1963, six-year-old Michael Myers stabs his sister Judith with a kitchen knife at their home in Haddonfield, Illinois. He is sent to Smith's Grove-Warren County Sanitarium and placed under the care of psychiatrist Dr. Sam Loomis. Loomis suspects that there is more to Myers than meets the eye and plans to have him committed indefinitely. At the age of 21, Myers escapes from Smith's Grove while being transferred, and returns to Haddonfield with Loomis in pursuit.

In Haddonfield, on Halloween Day, Myers stalks seventeen-year-old Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), and she catches several glimpses of him watching her. That night, Myers kills three of Laurie's friends who are in the house across the street from where Laurie is babysitting two children. She soon discovers what has happened and escapes with her life from Myers, but is attacked nearly three more times, throughout which she has stabbed him with a knitting needle, a clothes hanger, and a knife. Loomis eventually shows up and shoots Myers six times, causing him to fall over the second story balcony, but his body is gone, leaving wonder and suspense at the very end.

The idea of a never dieing Myers, was used to symbolize the eternity of evil. In the movie, Dr. Loomis makes several comments on how he found the boy to be “simply pure evil”. Rather unrealistic if you believe in causality, but hey…. who ever said movies had to be realistic? Many have psychoanalyzed the meaning behind the film, with such theories as it being prejudice against women, or notes on how Laurie's murdered friends are more “sexually active”, however she (obviously a chaste and modest girl) manages to survive. Whatever happened to people just “watching” the movies?

Anyway, this film sprouted seven sequels, all of which featured more gore, were on bigger budgets, and generally were not as popular and respected as their predecessor. They delved deeper into Myer's history, and deeper into Halloween, with mention of Samhain on numerous occasions. But none could replace the first

The next is a group of films that I vaguely mentioned before, which is appropriately titled as the “Universal Monster Classics”. This would include such movies as The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, The Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. It is interesting to note that nearly all of them are based upon well known novels, though usually were adapted so much that they barely resembled them anymore. But these films, are now seen as the defining versions of these legends.

Though it is seen as more of a Christmas film by fans, Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas holds deep overtones of Halloween. The main character is the king of Halloween town after all. The film was sort of a tribute to Burton's love for both holidays, which is obvious from the whole concept itself. Jack Skellington, a.k.a Jack the Pumpkin King, is depressed with his role, and accidentally stumbles across Christmas, and falls in love with it. He then attempts to take control of the holiday, but ends up wrecking it, since he will still always have a lingerin love for Halloween deep within his heart….or… bones…

Conclusion

With such immense growth in a rather short period, it poses rather wondrous questions to me. How much bigger will it get? What more can be added to Halloween? What new traditions shall be weaved into the already immense fabric of this ancient celebration, and how will old ones be kept? What light shall our descendants see it in? I suppose we shall never know. Or…. shall we? If you believe in the afterlife, and if you are one to believe that the spirits really did roam the night to visit those upon earth, then perhaps we shall all catch a glimpse of how it shall evolve after all….

And now, comes the end of our journey. I hope to have provided some interesting information on the truly fascinating, mysterious, and widely celebrated world of Halloween.

Footnotes:

1 Nicolas Rogers, Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (Oxford University Press, 2002) 11, 12

The problem is that the people I’d like to persuade fall into two drastically different groups – those who take a very literal view of biblical infallibility, and those who find no value in it at all. So…let’s go in chronological order and talk about what the Bible IS before talking about what it BECAME.

Our Bible critics correctly point out that the Bible contains contradictions. It contains points of view that are historically inaccurate and scientifically naïve. It endorses laws, customs and behaviors that we would find barbaric, and prohibits others for what seem to us to be no good reason, often crystallizing behaviors which seem to us to be merely outdated social customs into eternal moral precepts. It contains works from a wide variety of sources (some of them pagan) from different historical periods, and these sources have different and even contradictory points of view on spiritual and even factual issues. It contains several works which purport to be authored by individuals who almost certainly did NOT actually write them. Finally, both the old and new Testaments have been redacted, perhaps several times, by editors who re-wrote sacred history, included some sources and discarded others, and made editorial changes to the whole collection – in order to suit their own point of view.

So why read it?

Starting from the ground up, we need to read it because of its immense cultural significance. The Bible is not simply an attempt to record history – the Bible IS history. The book itself has had a more profound influence on Western civilization (for good and bad) than any other work. It has affected our law, our educational system, our philosophy, our systems of government, our customs, our social institutions, etc. It’s impossible to understand our world without understanding the Bible.

Secondly, we read it because of its literary value. Just as we read and appreciate the Iliad or the histories of Shakespeare for their own internal beauty (in spite of the fact that neither is good history or good science). The Bible contains the writings of gifted authors, containing poems and stories and writings full of beauty, savagery, pathos and glory. It has been a source of inspiration for countless works of literature, music, painting and sculpture. The poetry of Dante and Milton, the music of Handel and Bach, the painting of Rembrandt, the sculpture of Michelangelo… all steeped in Biblical themes and influences. Not to have read the Bible makes us artistically handicapped.
Then there is the element of scholarship. Because the books of the Bible have been regarded as sacred for much of their history, they have been preserved with as much care and accuracy as ancient methods allow. In fact, even many of the textual errors introduced into the Bible were for the sake of accuracy. Scribes would sometimes copy marginal notes into the text when recopying a manuscript, for fear that the notes might have been part of the original text, and being unwilling to take the chance of discarding holy words. Because of this, the Bible preserves layers of historically invaluable material which can help understand earlier periods of history.

It is true that it requires quite a bit of training and considerable research to understand what the Bible REALLY tells us about the times it was written in, and disputed opinions are many. During much of the time the Bible was authored, the concept and standards of writing “history” or “biography” as we know it today were unknown. The historical and biographical (and other) forms of the Bible have to be understood on their own terms, and not on ours.

Finally (and for many, most importantly), what about the SPIRITUAL value of the Bible?

In spite of the differing viewpoints and historical development mentioned earlier – in my position as someone interested in mystical spirituality and the Perennial Philosophy – the Bible is irreplaceably valuable. Let me explore for a minute a couple of concepts from Ken Wilber’s work on human spiritual history – the concept of stages vs. states.

Mankind passes through stages of spiritual, moral and social development. In the normal course of things, this can generally be regarded as “progress” (although there are pitfalls at each stage). These stages, which I’ve mentioned before, move from animism and shamanism up through goddess-centric horticultural societies, power-gods, mythic-membership societies, mental and intellectual abstractions of spirituality and eventually integral spirituality. (For some explanation on this development, see Ken’s essay ‘Which Level of God Do You Believe In at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15318_1.html) While there will always be a few forward-looking individuals who are several stages ahead of their culture, they will usually end up at odds with the culture as a whole until a critical stage of development is reached.

But the second factor to consider is extraordinary STATES of consciousness. At every stage of development, both culturally and personally, there are occasions when we have access to extraordinary and unusual STATES of consciousness. While the stages of consciousness need to be EARNED by hard work and development, these extraordinary states are often a free gift. From out of nowhere, Saul of Tarsus may be knocked off his horse or Ezekiel may see visions of strange symbolic beasts, or the tribal Shaman may enter a trance. We can group these (roughly) into nature mysticism, deity mysticism, formless mysticism, and nondual mysticism. And anyone can experience any of these, at any stage of development. BUT, on returning to their ordinary state of consciousness, they will tend to interpret these experiences in the context and language and trappings of their stage of development. An experience that a Greek might interpret as a visit from Apollo, for example, a modern Jungian might interpret as an experience of an inner archetype.

The reason for this slightly long explanation, and the application is this: Mystical states and truths are described in the Bible. They were experienced by prophets and seers and poets of various ages and at many stages of human development. But they are reported in the language of the stage of development the authors find themselves in. The Psalms, for example, which at times sink into bitter recriminations or lash out at enemies, are also full of poetry which proceeds from deep mystical insights from several states of consciousness. Spiritual insights, most likely the product of these experiences of extraordinary states of consciousness, abound in scripture.

In addition to the insights of extraordinary prophets and seers, the Bible contains many stories rich in universal archetypes and mythic themes. The need for powerful and expressive mythology seems to be fundamental to human spiritual development. Witness the popularity of modern mythological creations such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the entire fantasy genre is sparked, or the mythology of George Lucas’ ‘Star Wars’, which explicitly and deliberately utilized the work of mythologist Joseph Campbell in creating his storyline. Campbell described mythology as “the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human manifestation”, and believed that a lack of mythology had severe negative consequences for society and individuals. Mythology allows people to identify their own life and situations with universal patterns and themes, to feel connected with the cosmos. Whether we are David fighting Goliath or Joseph forgiving his brothers, we can find indispensable mythic images in the Bible that resonate with our life situations – particularly at certain stages of development.

It has been suggested that my method of finding valuable insights and patterns in the Bible is similar to finding shapes in a Rorschach ink-blot. I see the “higher message” because I’m LOOKING for a higher message. But this isn’t all I see. I’m quite aware of problems, provincialisms, contradictions and barbarities preserved in scripture. In addition to this, I find profound spiritual value. Perhaps the Rorschach criticism points both directions. It’s possible to read the Bible and see ONLY the difficulties – because difficulties are what we want to see.

But, granting that there is spiritual good in the Bible, wouldn’t it be better to simply extract that good and throw away the rest? Couldn’t a book with mystical insight and mythic purpose be written that was as good as or better than the Bible? While I’m all in favor of such books, I don’t believe they would replace the Bible for this reason: having been written from a variety of viewpoints at different stages of spiritual development, the Bible SPEAKS to all those viewpoints and stages, and can be used as a tool to lead us from one to the next. The individual at the “power-god” stage will find plenty of heart-warming stories in the Bible that assure him how much better and more powerful HIS God is than other gods. Meanwhile, such a person can be approached with the more subtle teachings of Jesus or Paul that call them to a higher stage of understanding. The “power-god” person is not going to even pick up a book by Krishnamurti or Eckhart Tolle. Which brings me to a final point about the Bible.

While I respect the right of others to disagree, I find something profoundly “providential” in the way the Bible has managed to come together out of apparently contradictory viewpoints to form a more balanced whole than any of it’s individual sources could have imagined or intended. In the Old Testament, some sources saw God as distant and transcendent. Others saw him as immanent and approachable. What results is a unique harmony of both views that see divinity both in the absolute and in the manifest. Lawgivers in the Old Testament are balanced by charismatic and iconoclastic prophets. In the New Testament, some sources emphasize Jesus’ humanity, others his connection with divinity. Some books argue for grace and others for morality. In the balance of these opposites, more profound truths are achieved than in either extreme.

It occurs to me that this is a long enough post without getting into the next part – how Bible reverence went awry. I’ll try to post on that presently.

- D.E. Harding

As most of you know, I have a lot of sympathy with atheists. There’s something noble in many of them. Since childhood, most of them have been approached with crass literal interpretations of the religious metaphors of the Bible. They have heard irrational justifications for the divine misbehavior in the Old Testament. They have been told they are damned for wrongs they never personally committed. They have been offered contradictory and arcane explanations for why Jesus dying on the cross should matter to them. They have been called fools and swine when they found all these ideas unpersuasive. Ultimately they have been threatened with everlasting torture and finally shunned.

There’s a refreshing courage in someone who can simply tell the Christian culture it can take a hike. And buried under a reasonable skepticism is often a profound regard for the truth, however stark it may be. But… I find that I cannot be an atheist. There are simply too many important things in my experience that hard-line atheism either dismisses or disparages.

One of my favorite quotations from G. K. Chesterton goes like this: “We have all forgotten what we really are. All that we call common sense and rationality and practicality and positivism only means that for certain dead levels of our life we forget that we have forgotten. All that we call spirit and art and ecstasy only means that for one awful instant we remember that we forget.”

There are moments in my experience when rationality and positivism aren’t an adequate world view. In fact, to say they are inadequate is a terrible understatement. They seem, as Chesterton said, “dead”. When I try to get into the mindset of the hard-core materialism, I feel like the men in Eliot’s poem.

“We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar”

The External World

“Flower in the crannied wall, I pluck you out of the crannies, I hold you here, root and all in my hand, little flower—but if I could understand what you are, root and all, and all in all, I should know what God and man is.” – Tennyson

I felt the dryness of rationalism first in relation to the external features of the cosmos. My first major in college was zoology, so I had a reasonably good scientific education. But time and time again I would find that science simply pointed me toward profound states of awe, but then couldn't follow me into the wonder of it. I can remember many of the exact experiences – Looking at a map of the universe in National Geographic. Staring up into a profoundly clear night sky at sea. Studying the ATP cycle in molecular biology. I would be left with a overwhelming sense of wonder and amazement, and nothing to this day changes my belief that these things are WORTHY of amazement – in fact demand it. It makes no difference to point out that the ATP cycle, for example, could have come about by “natural” processes. All this does is rearrange the wonder, not diminish it. It is just as inexplicable that it should be possible for “natural processes” to create such a marvel. The natural processes themselves become the wonder.

The Internal World

"The heart has reasons that reason knows not of. We feel it in a thousand things. . . . . do you love by reason?" – Pascal

Looking at my own inner life inspires more wonder. Is it really possible that so much meaning and joy and wonder arises in a cosmos who’s own interior is entirely dead and inert? No physical explanation of cognition even touches the inner experience. Joy, and spirit and art and ecstasy simply are not, to my mind, fortunate epiphenomena arising out of the cold physical facts of the world. They are more important to me, and more real to me, than the physical world itself, and it seems unavoidable that they arise out of the innermost nature of the cosmos itself. And so I suspect that not only in myself, but in the entire cosmos, “inner experience” is a fact, and that the whole cosmos has an “interior life” of some kind.

Aesthetic experience

When I experience natural beauty, look at a sunset or ponder a flower – or when I read a transcendent poem or look at a great painting – what is this profound feeling I experience in connection with the quality of these objects? It is really a matter of my mere subjective preferences – just as I like carrots but abhor beets? This seems a totally unsatisfactory answer for aesthetic experience. When we appreciate quality in the world, we are appreciating something real – something supremely important. This quality is recognized by a non-thinking process, and hence cannot be defined, tested for or recorded by an instrument. And yet… we know what it is.

Existence Itself

Nothing is more amazing than the fact that anything exists at all. It's difficult to really wrap our mind around just how bizarre the fact of existence is. I remember at least one occasion, however, when the whole foreign mystery of existence itself came crashing through to my consciousness. I felt trapped in some terribly foreign state of being, totally out of place. I suspect many have had similar experiences. WHY is there something rather than nothing – this seems the ultimate question, and it is impossible to feel the full weight of this mystery bearing down on your consciousness without sensing that something terribly important is behind it all. But, as Ken Wilber pointed out, strict materialism has nothing to offer to the mystery of existence beyond what he calls "the philosophy of oops" – a reluctance even allow the question of "why?"

Mystical experience

At the end of his life, Thomas Aquinas (the real one that is) experienced a profound mystical vision that caused him to put down his pen and leave his Summa Theologica for another to finish. His scribe begged him to complete the work that would come to be considered the greatest masterpiece of rational theology of all time. "I cannot.” Thomas replied. “Such things have been revealed to me that what I have written seems but straw." Profound mystical experiences of various kinds open up a perspective that is not adequately addressed by rationality alone. These range from such things as out-of-body experiences to profound states of non-dual awareness that, while impossible to completely communicate, make it utterly impossible to look at the world without seeing it asmanifestation of a divine unity. I'd recommend the following link as an excellent example of such an experience: http://www.nonduality.com/dazdark.htm. It's understandable that a hard-line atheist would find a description of someone else's experience unpersuasive. But I believe it's utterly impossible to have one and remain entirely satisfied with hard-line atheism alone as a worldview. To quote a line from Sagan's Contact, where Ellie is explaining her experience, "I… had an experience… I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever… A vision of the universe, that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how… rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater then ourselves, that we are *not*, that none of us are alone!"

This is just a brief survey of some of the areas that make hard-core atheism, as a worldview, something I can't accept. Is it possible that I'm deceiving myself – that all this meaning and beauty and unity that I seem to sense in the world are really just epiphenomena of physics and chemistry? Logically, I would answer that yes, it's possible. But my whole point is that logic is inadequate to the task of answering this question.

I'll close with a few words from "The Silver Chair" by C.S. Lewis. The story is about several children, accompanied by a strange pessimistic creature called a “marshwiggle” named “Puddleglum” who descend from the kingdom of Narnia, ruled by the good lion Aslan and enter a subterranean kingdom ruled by a witch-queen to try to rescue a kidnapped prince. Once there, the witch puts them under a spell of confusion and forgetfulness. She gradually convinces the children that there IS no world above ground, no sun, no sky, no Aslan. They become convinced that these are all simply children’s tales and dreams – projections they have created in their minds from the drab and ordinary objects in the miserable underground world ruled by the witch. Only Puddleglum rebels.

“One word, Ma’am” he says to the witch, “All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face on I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we HAVE only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours IS the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”

 Studying the record of mystical experiences over time and across cultures, we find that there are basically four different “states” of mystical experience that are available to all people. These manifest as “peak experiences” of four general kinds. However, in spite of the similarity of these states as they are experienced by different people – the states will be INTERPRETED according to the level that person is at, spiritually. Here’s what the four states look like:

 Nature mysticism. This state is experienced as a profound sense of the unity, aliveness and wonder of the natural world and our connection to it. The whole world seems alive with beauty and meaning. We also feel a unity with all other human beings. People can often be pulled into this sort of state while gazing at the night sky, for example, or climbing a mountain. It is a spiritual state often associated with such paths as new-age paganism or Native American spirituality but is also seen in the writer of the psalms and St Francis of Assisi.

1. “Subtle” mysticism (or “deity” mysticism) This state corresponds in some ways to the dream state. People experience visions and apparitions. Angels, spiritual guides, gods and other non-material beings are seen, and reality becomes fluid and dream-like. The person becomes aware of a “higher” spiritual order behind the world of form and substance. This spiritual state has examples in many spiritual paths – from Ezekiel to Carlos Castaneda to Paul on the road to Damascus.
2. “Causal” mysticism (or “formless” mysticism). In this state, external objects and even spiritual objects fade and one is immersed in an infinite abyss of light, love and formless, timeless emptiness. This is also paradoxically a fullness – or an abyss so deep that all fullness is within it. You are one with this fullness and light, and experience it as your true self. There are many examples of descriptions of such states from the Gnostics, the Sufi, the Cabbalists, the Buddhists, the Christians mystics such as Eckhart, etc.
3. Non-dual mysticism. This state unifies the others. One sees the manifest world of things and forms as an expression of the formless emptiness – and one sees in the formless emptiness the potential for all the manifest forms, physical and spiritual. You are the vast emptiness in which all manifest forms arise and fade, and you are the forms themselves.

One’s “God view” can change considerably in each of these states. A form or symbol of God that is highly meaningful  in the subtle state  can become trivial or even an impediment in the causal state. In the non-dual state, God is seen in all the symbols as well as in the emptiness devoid of symbols.

Taking the most common of the “tow-the-line” scriptures, we have selections from 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, Ephesians and Colossians (I’ll save the scripture in Romans for last)

These epistles all have something in common. Most scholars agree that they were written later than the earlier Pauline epistles, and that they were NOT written by Paul (or by Peter) but by other authors writing in the name of the apostles. Nearly all scholars agree that Paul actually wrote Romans, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, and 1st Thessalonians. Nearly all scholars agree that 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus were NOT written by Paul. And MOST scholars believe that Ephesians, Colossians and 2nd Thessalonians were also NOT written by Paul, although the debate is more lively about them. The epistles of Peter are also the subject of some debate, but the majority come down against their being written by Peter himself.

What evidence do scholars rely on to come to these conclusions? Linguistic analysis, stylistic considerations, anachronisms of various sorts. I’d be happy to go into detail about any book in particular if anyone is really interested.

If we assume the majority of scholarship is correct, why did several authors in the established church feel the need to co-opt the authority of Paul and Peter to write so many scriptures telling Christians to tow-the-line, submit to authority, and follow the social norms? Because, contrary to what you suggest, the earliest Christianity, as taught by Jesus and Paul, shows signs of being uniquely egalitarian, unconventional, and challenging to the social order.

Jesus was totally unconventional in having women among his closest disciples. In some of the non-canonical gospels, Mary Magdalene in particular plays a pivotal role. The early communities were communal. Social norms of status were ignored. Paul is describing it well in Galatians (one of the genuine epistles you note) when he says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” In early Pauline Churches, there were women prophets, women deacons, and at least one woman apostle that we know of. Women supervised schools of theology. Some of these women, taking their cue from Paul, opted not to marry, so that they could devote themselves to work in the Church.

At some point, after the deaths of the first apostles – as Christianity began to “settle down” into an established church, certain factions felt that things had gone much too far. Christians were being talked about scandalously. Christian women were behaving like men, and ignoring their “proper” social roles. Women were dressing unconventionally, women were giving instructions to MEN for heaven’s sake. Christians were ignoring issues of property and taxation, and were attracting unwelcome notice from the local magistrates. Slaves were claiming to be equal to their masters.

Some of the more important Christians decided that, since Jesus apparently wasn’t coming back any minute, it was time to stop the foolishness and settle down as good citizens. These people began to work their way into positions of power and wrote the pseudo-epistles that we have discussed, basically making Paul say “forget all those things I told you before about liberty – BEHAVE yourselves. Have decorum and act like good citizens”.

Not being content with simply inventing new epistles, this faction also made some additions to earlier epistles, such as Corinthians and possible Romans (as I shall discuss in a moment). These are usually recognizable as some injunction to conform to social norms – dropped into the middle of a chapter where it has nothing to do with the material either before or after it.

Now it may well be that some of this concern about the behavior of Christians was warranted. All things considered, there are advantages to fitting in the social norms, especially if you’re trying to attract converts. The problem is that social norms (including ours) usually involve some amount of injustice and inequity. Some of the general injunctions you quoted from the pseudo-epistles, “obey the law”, “children obey your parents” seem like reasonable generalizations. “Wives be in subjection to your husbands” and “servants be obedient to your masters…with fear and trembling” seem a bit dated. But remember that these are NOT the teachings of Jesus, or even of Paul or Peter – but the teachings of those who came later.

Ok, returning to the issue of the quote from Romans. This one is a difficulty, because Romans is almost universally regarded as genuine, but with perhaps a few later additions. The question is, is Romans 13: 1–7 one of those additions? There are several reasons to think that it is. One of them is an abrupt change of topic from what was discussed before and what comes after. There are minor stylistic differences (although hard to evaluate with certainty in so short a snippet). But the major problem is that Romans 13:1–7 makes absolutely NO sense coming from the mouth of Paul. For example, verse 3:

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:”

Paul knows very well from personal experience that rulers are quite capable of persecuting the good and praising the evil. Paul rarely entered a city without eventually ending up in trouble with the authorities. He was in jail several times and suffered various other punishments. Even on the rare occasion when a ruler took a liking to him (such as Agrippa) they felt compelled by the uproar he had caused to take measures.

It gets even more absurd in the following verses:

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil… For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

So all the authorities who persecuted Paul, crucified Jesus and beheaded James were God’s ministers, and were SO diligent in constantly rooting out evil that they well deserved the taxes they imposed?!? If this is actually Paul talking, he’s been smoking something.

To me, it seems overwhelmingly obvious that this is NOT Paul writing but a later interpolation from the “tow-the-line” era of Church development, unless…

I read an interesting paper online which makes an interesting argument. This IS Paul writing, but he is using irony to disguise his criticism of rulers. In other words, if he were to actually criticize leaders and rulers in his letter, he could be punished for writing it, and his Roman readers for reading it. Instead, he damns them with false praise, so OBVOUSLY false that everyone reading it at the time will recognize it as irony. For example, if I wanted to criticize the current administration in the United States, I might write something like:

“Don’t worry at all about giving away your freedoms in the Patriot Act. Our law enforcement officials are guided by God. They never arrest or detain anyone who isn’t guilty, and they never snoop on anyone who isn’t a great danger to our country. After all, this is the same government which protected us from the terrible danger of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which I am SURE they will find any minute now…”

In other words, it doesn’t actually say anything negative. 2000 years from now, someone might read it and think I was being perfectly serious. But anyone reading it today with any amount of wit would understand it was a scathing criticism disguised as irony.

Anyhow… to summarize, Jesus and his apostles were not anti-woman, pro-slavery, or pro-establishment. They were, for the time, remarkably progressive – but many of these advances were partially lost in a reactionary movement that set in shortly after the death of the apostles.