There is nothing wrong in "Baptizing" a non-Christian practice as long as there is seperation of the two.
No Christian celebrates Christmas thinking they are worshipping the sun, they are giving glory to Christ.
We can take something that is not of Christian origin and give it a sacred meaning. This is better than just running away from it. Take the Jehovah's Witnesses for example. They shun Christmas, birthdays and the like and it is going too far to try and impose an outside belief on something that doesn't bear such kind of adherence.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with things that are neutral to Christianity. Only (as Physics has pointed out) is it wrong if it first is evil or sinful.
What is better - ignoring pagan practices, or taking the good things in them, changing their meaning and giving it a Christian connotation in order to work "from within"? This is how Christmas on Dec. 25th came about. Many times in fact the overreaction to such things helps them to prosper and assigns a meaning to neutral objects (like Christmas trees) that have no evil meaning inherent in them at all.
Dave Armstrong made a good point...he said:
No Christian celebrates Christmas thinking they are worshipping the sun, they are giving glory to Christ.
We can take something that is not of Christian origin and give it a sacred meaning. This is better than just running away from it. Take the Jehovah's Witnesses for example. They shun Christmas, birthdays and the like and it is going too far to try and impose an outside belief on something that doesn't bear such kind of adherence.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with things that are neutral to Christianity. Only (as Physics has pointed out) is it wrong if it first is evil or sinful.
What is better - ignoring pagan practices, or taking the good things in them, changing their meaning and giving it a Christian connotation in order to work "from within"? This is how Christmas on Dec. 25th came about. Many times in fact the overreaction to such things helps them to prosper and assigns a meaning to neutral objects (like Christmas trees) that have no evil meaning inherent in them at all.
Dave Armstrong made a good point...he said:
quote:
We observe the Apostle Paul "incorporating paganism" in a sense when he dialogues with the Greek intellectuals and philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17). He compliments their religiosity (17:22), and comments on a pagan "altar with the inscription, 'To an unknown god.' " (17:23). He then goes on to preach that this "unknown god" is indeed Yahweh, the God of the OT and of the Jews (17:23-24). Then he expands upon the understanding of the true God as opposed to "shrines made by human hands" (17:24-25), and God as Sovereign and Sustaining Creator (17:26-28). In doing so he cites two pagan poets and/or philosophers: Epimenides of Crete (whom he also cites in Titus 1:12) and Aratus of Cilicia (17:28) and expands upon their understanding as well (17:29).