Do you know what's worse than Friday falling on the 13th of the month? Friday the 14th. Why? Because everybody expects something bad to happen on Friday 13th, but NO ONE ever suspects Friday 14th. AND, by total coincidence, this Friday the 14th is Valentine's Day. That is the perfect distraction so that--I don't know who runs all this--but it's the perfect opportunity to like...get murdered or something.
Valentine's is a holiday based around decorating everything with hearts and dying everything in shades of red.
Frankly, I always kinda assumed it was about murder to begin with..
Comment has been collapsed.
Pagans prefer the term "sacrifice."
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, modern paganism disdains sacrifice, and thereby such is rare (for reasons other than modern laws) among those associating with the label, and by way of that such has never been large scale (eg, adopted by an entire large sect) among them. Moreover, neither classic nor modern pagans have never actually ever been associated with Valentine's Day.
Romans, however, have been associated with the early aspects of Valentine's Day; While that has largely been considered to be an erroneous association, Romans also have never practiced widescale sacrifice and openly disdained the pratice, to the point of considering sacrifice an element which distinguished non-Roman cultures with Roman culture.
Typically, the origination of Valentine's Day as a concept is either attributed to Christianity (where it presumably originated), or to Chaucer (whose poem popularized it, and may also have potentially originated it). [Side-note, Chaucer is considered by some to have instead been referring to the celebration of a different Saint Valentine, whose celebration fell on May 2nd or 3rd [>>]]
That leaves us with an association to Christianity, to the English, and to poets. To the best of my knowledge, modern English cultures have never engaged in any form of organized sacrifice, unless you're willing to include Brexit as such. (Which, in fairness, does seem as though it'd classify as self-inflicted harm, and would thereby potentially be valid as being considered as self-inflicted-sacrifice.)
And as far as poets, everyone knows Van Gough claimed sacrifice as a painter-associated thing, so clearly poets can't compete on that. Besides, how would poets engage in organized sacrifice? Poetry slams? That'd make for one hell of a sacrifice ritual.
Conversely, certain Christian sects actively encourage(d) animal sacrifice or self-inflicted-sacrifice as a sect. Admittedly, beliefs favoring animal sacrifice were limited to more off-form sects (eg, Mormons) and indications are that it was never practiced to any large or long-term scale, making such practices rare and fringe behaviors, as with the Romans and Pagans.
The self-inflicted-sacrifice bit still stands, however, as per the flagellation most typically associated with historical Catholicism. Moreover, the Christian association of two Saints by the name of Valentine to the holiday further soldifies the Christian association with sacrifice to the holiday, as both saints were martyred. [The Saint whose celebration is in May was, however, not martyred, and instead died of natural causes.]
All things considered, your association may be a bit misplaced. ^.^
Comment has been collapsed.
The holiday is based on Lupercalia. The trappings and explanations were altered/adjusted at a later date, and the adoption ( and further alteration) of the holiday by Pauline Christians occurred even later. I suspect you have already run into that information, although you seem to have dismissed it.
Comment has been collapsed.
As I noted ("While that has largely been considered to be an erroneous association"), that association is generally considered to be inaccurate by many historians. Lupercalia was replaced by Candlemas via Pope Gelasius, and there's no clear evidence that Lupercalia ever influenced the later Valentine's Day holiday.
The conjecture that Lupercalia influenced Valentine's Day is based entirely on the fact that Lupercalia and Valentine's occur in February, that both have an association with matchmaking, and that Chrisitians have long had a history of co-opting pagan traditions [which, of course, makes sense, given that the Roman Empire largely popularized Christianity, and that pagan is a term first used to refer to non-Christian Romans, despite its latter (English) association with all non-Abrahamic cultures].
However, with no historical evidence whatsoever of an association between Valentine's Day and Lupercalia, and the fact that we already know what holiday replaced Lupercalia, most historians don't believe Lupercalia was responsible for the origination of Valentine's Day. This is emphasized by the strong reasoning behind Chaucer having actually been referring to a holiday in May, indicating that there wasn't even a timing association between Lupercalia and Valentine's Day.
Further, the matchmaking association of Lupercalia has never had any actual evidence, and appears to have just been hearsay, with modern scholars having given ample arguments to the contrary. Rather, Lupercalia was inherently a purification festival [same as Candlemas, which replaced it], and the closest the holiday came to sexual/romantic elements was in its participants stripping down for flagellation, which isn't exactly the stuff of romance for most people [YMMV].
Moreover, Valentine's Day doesn't share any inhereted traits from Lupercalia. Even the rumored, largely debunked "matchmaking lottery" concept for the festival isn't something ever associated with Valentine's Day, which has always been associated with courtship romance. Thus, the only validation for Lupercalia being a basis for Valentine's Day is in "Christians like to co-op stuff". Which, while compelling in broad considerations, isn't exactly convincing on its own.
Despite the ample justifications that Lupercalia had nothing to do with Valentine's Day, and the fact that the modern historical community thereby largely dismisses the association [which only derived as early historian guesses in the first place, so it's natural they fell under peer review, as many such conjectures do], I did properly addressed both the Lupercalia association AND the non-Lupercalia association, giving proper consideration and conclusions based on both. As part of that acknowledgement, I further noted that Romans (with my intent being to emphasize pagan ones, such as those celebrating Lupercalia) didn't largely practice sacrifice, and indicated that that was the core consideration of the matter, given that your entire premise was "pagan sacrifice".
I did however acknowledge self-inflicted-harm as a form of sacrifice, so you could have argued that as a valid basis for "pagan sacrifice"- though, as I understand it, Lupercalia involved whipping others, so.. eh. It's a hard sell, no matter how you look at it. Add in that I was addressing Valentine's Day from the start [and thereby, inherently limiting it to English and Christian behaviors] rather than its origins, and I felt safe enough dismissing that aspect as being less convincing than the Christian angle, given the actual topic.
Though, of course, the entire thing was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, to begin with.
And besides, who'd expect someone to argue against historical Christianity being affiliated with bloody practices? Add in that my original premise was actually "interior and exterior decor derived via slaughter and evisceration" rather than anything related to sacrifice..
Should I interpret that as passive-aggressive dismissiveness, or just as a carelessly considered off-hand statement?
Comment has been collapsed.
Your original comment came across as a tongue-in-cheek questioning of the true nature of "Valentine's Day," so I responded with a tongue-in cheek reply underlining the actual origin of the "holiday." Your second response appears to be a drawn-out refutation of my assertion. While I am accepting of disagreement, I found your manner of argument specious and therefore decided to explicate my previous comment in a similarly serious tone. In appreciation of the fact that you included fragments of truth in your rebuttal, yet spent the main of your energy splitting hairs instead of addressing the topic you raised (i.e. the true origin of February 14th as a day of ritual), I acknowledged that my reply to you would likely be met with "I have already addressed that."
I seem to have anticipated correctly as that is precisely the response you gave. Despite your words, however, you have not actually addressed my assertion. You have done a fair job of side-stepping it, though, using a few rhetorical devices. That method might be helpful in a debate (depending upon your opponent), but it is ineffective when establishing legitimacy.
For me, I have already made my point, above. Anyone wishing to find the truth of the matter may pursue it through his or her own research and decide what to believe. I do not see the benefit of debating you, and this forum is not really the place for a full-blown lecture on the subject, so I am concluding here. If anything I have written, now or previously, has come across as anything other than respectful, I assure you that is the opposite of what was intended.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hahaha, that was a good read. Thank you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks !
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the wishlist giveaway. )
Comment has been collapsed.
My birthday is that day, is that the bad thing you were worried about? It might qualify, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you! :)
I don't think you have anything to be afraid of!
Comment has been collapsed.
TWSS.
Comment has been collapsed.
ty
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you very much indeed! 😏
Comment has been collapsed.
I have nothing to say about Valentine's Day, but thank you very much for the game anyway!
Comment has been collapsed.
You're welcome! Enjoy the game!
Comment has been collapsed.