Sometimes we’re warned about certain practices simply because they weren’t mentioned in the Bible. Here is an extract from a recently posted concern about a Roman Catholic priest wearing a particular garment called a dalmatic:
- The dalmatic was not from the Bible.
- The dalmatic was not an original garment that deacons wore.
- The source of the dalmatic came from worldly society.
- People had concerns about the dalmatic because it was considered to be effeminate.
- The dalmatic became associated with imperial politicians, including emperors.
- Because of its ties to politics, it was adopted by pontiffs and bishops.
- During the time of Emperor Constantine, it was adopted for use by deacons.
In cases like this, I like to play word substitution. With a little tweaking to items 5 to 7, here is what we get if we replace “dalmatic” with “necktie”:
- The necktie was not from the Bible.
- The necktie was not an original garment that deacons wore.
- The source of the necktie came from worldly society.
- People had concerns about the necktie because it was considered to be effeminate.
- The necktie became associated with politicians, including presidents.
- Because of its ties to the French, it was adopted by men as formal attire.
- During the time of Herbert Armstrong, it became required for use by men attending services.
Another reason for this piece is that BT posts a lot of ho-hum articles on the Catholic Church. It later dawned on me that perhaps it was to reinforce the belief (put forward by RCM himself) that an antagonist mentioned in Catholic prophecy may be Bob.
But, as always, caution. Bob tends to make simple blunders on some biblical matters. An example was the post, ‘Cardinal says priests should pray to the east…’ Well, the Jewish custom is to face the Temple, which from the Western Hemisphere and Europe would be in an easterly direction. Ambassador Report (AR14) mentions the seats in the Ambassador Auditorium faced east.
The problem in Bob’s post is the reason given for ‘facing east’ being wrong: Ezekiel 8:15-16, with the ‘abomination’ of men turned to face east. Careful reading reveals the men had their backs to the Temple, and faced the rising sun. They were obviously on the eastern side of the Temple, and should have been facing west, toward the Temple – and if they had been on the western side of the Temple, they should have faced east.
What ever happened to “I like”, or “I dislike”? The problem with groups that do your thinking for you is that personal matters of preference are nonexistent. They’ve all been thought out in advance, and play out in accordance with the preferences of the leaders.
Since the pagans existed many years before the present, and since they were human beings, they did many things, and had many customs. That is part of the commonality of human existence. Almost nobody does anything for professed pagan reasons today, with the possible exception of Wiccans.
Yet religious groups who are heavy on control assign the pagan label to anything they do not like, while giving a pass to obviously pagan things which they prefer or enjoy.
We speak of living in the past, but this gives a whole new meaning to that concept. In the present, an item of clothing or a certain rhythm have nothing to do with paganism, or pantheistic worship systems. In that sense, paganism has been diffused or elliminated from general thought. Why attempt to bring it back? That’s really all that certain religious groups are doing.
BB
Some years ago a Baptist minister said in a matter of fact way that the popular holidays are based on paganism, just check Wikipedia. The old fringe ideas to draw us in don’t have the same draw as 50 years ago.
In Protestant England, Colonial America and the early USA, at some time or other Christmas has been banned, and not for being pagan. Even the ACLU seems to let the White House Easter Egg Hunt and the Capital Hill Christmas tree alone. Christmas, and even Halloween, are popular in some parts of China, completely devoid of any religious (pagan or otherwise) connotations.