Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist 173 Replies latest jw friends

  • DanTheMan

    Nice post Becka. And here I've heard all these jokes about newfies being dumb and all that. LOL

    When someone smashes a pinata, nobody is thinking about anything religious, they're thinking, "YES, I finally smashed the pinata!!".

    That cracked me up.

  • sweetscholar

    hi. glad you got a kick out of all that. but one other point that has been raised both by Little Common Sense Toe Man and others is this oft used and mis-applied scripture of "judge no man" 1 Corinthians 2:15. FIRST OF ALL. that's not really the scripture. and it's "examines" more accurately or "discerned" not really "judge". "judge" is a word that can be used, but "examine" or "discern" really gives the better thought. but that's minor.

    the real verse in question is Colossians 2:16 "let no man judge you in respect to...festivals or new mons or sabbaths". totally mis-applied to support the notion that pagan Christmas and holidays are ok, and also birthday celebrations and if you read the entire true context it shows that it's a mis-application A) because it's talking about Jewish festivals and holy days THAT GOD SANCTIONED AND COMMANDED AT ONE TIME. NOT to pagan sun god demonic nationalistic un-Biblical "days" and feasts, B) it saying not to "judge you if YOU DON'T observe those Jewish days, not if you do." saying that those Jewish things were a shadow of Christ to come.

    and as far as 1 Corinthians 2:15 of "judging or examined by no man", how does "and context" help the pagan demonic hot air customed birthday celebration out ? things are spiritually discerned or examined. it says, in context, that the true spiritual man is not "judged". it didn't say "judge no man". it doesn't read that way. so ripping things out of context like the Devil did with Jesus (Luke 4) won't help anything. it says SPIRITUAL CHRISTIANS are not judged by the outside world in that sense. but not "men in general". but true "spiritual men" which Little Toes is not. just in case, you, AlmostAtheist, also bring verses like that up sometimes. cuz I think you have.

    both Colossians 2 and 1 Corinthians 2 have nothing to do with giving a free pass to pagan sun god observers cuz that has nothing to do with Jewish holidays that God once DID command, and "spiritual men" are not "judged" or "examined" in that sense, not pagan creepo rebellious childrend of disobedience, and worldly unbelievers. and "false Christians", as Christ said that MANY (not just a few isolated) would claim to follow Him and to be 'Christians' but would really not be. not really on that "narrow road to life". (Matthew 7; Luke 6) we need to be careful with those things. not reckless or emotional or stubborn or willfully blind, and "mingling with the nations and their works" (Psalm 106), and "not leaning upon our own emotions and understanding." (Proverbs 3:5,6)

  • AlmostAtheist

    ===== SweetScholar wrote ====
    the real verse in question is Colossians 2:16 "let no man judge you in respect to...festivals or new mons or sabbaths". totally mis-applied to support the notion that pagan Christmas and holidays are ok, and also birthday celebrations and if you read the entire true context it shows that it's a mis-application A) because it's talking about Jewish festivals and holy days THAT GOD SANCTIONED AND COMMANDED AT ONE TIME. NOT to pagan sun god demonic nationalistic un-Biblical "days" and feasts, B) it saying not to "judge you if YOU DON'T observe those Jewish days, not if you do." saying that those Jewish things were a shadow of Christ to come.

    Is he right? I can't immediately see anything to suggest he isn't. The verses seem to be talking about people being judged in regards to the Jewish festivals specifically. While I certainly don't agree that birthdays are condemned in the Bible, I'm leaning toward agreeing that Col 2:16 can't be used to say they're ok.

    Any thoughts, anybody?

    (I'll reply to the rest of your posts later, SS)


  • sweetscholar

    again, mixing apples and oranges. it gets tiresome. there are clear scriptures that say clearly DO NOT MIX THE TRUE WITH THE FALSE. which is what pagan Christmas definitely is. that's not even a guess at all. all the trappings and junk and baggage (the tree from Egypt, and the date and day and saturnalia) mixed with God's Son is BIG no no for true Paul and Holy Spirit and Scripture following Christian. the fact that it's also a "birthday" situation of course doesn't help at all. but the paganism and demonism and nonsense (as well as the fact that commemorating Christ's Birth in GENERAL has no sanction or warrant or command in Scripture) is atrocious in the pagan Christmas celebration. the worldliness, and corruption, and commercialism and heathenism is like crazy all over the place.

    and to constantly use as an alibi (well little kids don't look at that way, things lose their meaning, blah blah) is not a notion that you see in Scripture. to compare the elaborate FESTIVAL and paganism of corrupt worldly un-Biblical "Chrstmas" with duhh "pinatas" which is not a yearly thing or something that would even ever come up with most people in life is so retarded.

    to show just how bad human nature is and why such a thing as "Armageddon" coming ("just like the days of Noah") is when you see rationalizing BD celebrations because "well pagans also ate apples and urinated and took baths" braindead comparisons. pinata is not even in the same universe as pagan Christmas. the date right off the bat puts the Christmas partier in rough shape. a pagan date for a pagan sun god. mixed with Christ's supposed "birthday". read "what does Christ have to do with idols?" and "mix not the true with the false" "table of the Lord with the table of demons" even if it's done IGNORANTLY !!!! that's not an alibi for the ignorance to continue.

    'touch not the unclean thing'. yes it IS and not just was "unclean" and pagan and corrupt. "and be ye separate". but instead, Catholics and Protestants and "Orthodox" and atheists and agnostics and whatever MIX in the world and its vain pagan un-Scriptural crap.

    with self-justifications galore. (Jeremiah 17)

    emotionalism and peer pressure being big reasons for it. though many will deny that. but it becomes obvious after a while.

    why do things that are so unbelievably questionable and with unclean un-Biblical mixture and background? when the Bible (both "Testaments") says not to do that kind of thing? the PRINCIPLES ARE THERE. written aforetime for our time FOUR OUR INSTRUCTION" (Romans 15) TREE WORSHIP does not have to intentional per se, to be idolatrous in God's eyes anyway. or in the Bible's eyes. bowing before trees for gifts and "DECKING IT" (like Jeremiah 10 says the worldly pagan vain "nations" do) even UNWITTINGLY is still unholy and unclean and verily corrupt. wake up. just because you're so tradition-entrenched, and like it, does not make it right or Biblical. if you don't care to be so very very "Biblica" or "narrow-pathed" then at least admit it. but don't pretend to be a true sanctified Biblical Christian, then do dozens of thing that the Holy Bible in principle of not outright condemns. and not care one way or the other.

    using worn out alibis. of "oh it's not looked at that way today". or "pagans ate fruit too" duhh. or "the Bible does not specifically forbid it" when the Bible DOES forbid the types of things that go on with mixing the true and false.

    take a look at 1,2 Corinthians; Jeremiah 10; Isaiah 34; Ezekiel 20-40 "dungy idols in their hearts to trap them" and Revelation 9.

  • AlmostAtheist

    Hey SS,

    Here are the questions that I would still appreciate you addressing from my previous post:

    1) Do you agree that 4 of the 5 correlations I draw between makeup and birthdays are correct? (if not, why not?) (Point 4 is under discussion)
    2) Do you agree with this definition of "Vain": "Having no real value"?
    3) Do you truly feel that God condemns anything that has no value?

    the Bible does give hints that "elaborate FESTIVALS" are worse to God. the whole thing about setting apart a special DAY for vanity and witchcraft is obviously worse than makeup on the face.

    One could argue that participating in ritual witchcraft by applying makeup every single day is more offensive to god than participating in a single act once a year. I mean, a person could argue that. It would be as reasonable as your statement above. I don't think either one could honestly be considered "obvious", though.

    about "valuelessness", there's obviously SOME value to eye shadow and eye paint and eye makeup. but we don't have that kind of beneficial practicality thing with birthday candles and pagan-rooted and vain "wish making to a Druid god and demon guardian", and the adulate me attitude of it all.

    How can you invent the supposed value of cosmetics, but deny the value attributed to birthdays? Value is in the eye of the beholder. To me, the value of a person knowing I care enough about them to remember their birthday and pick out a gift that suits them is of great value. You can't call them valueless because birthdays are wrong, then use their valuelessness as a proof that they are wrong. That would certainly be circular reasoning.

    Scripture: 1 Timothy 2:9. Paul, under the Holy Spirit, said that he desired women to ADORN THEMSELVES. he didn't say "don't adorn yourselves", and where does the point of not overdoing it or doing it moderately come in? he said "adorn themselves well-arranged."

    All well and good, but the verse mentions neither birthdays nor makeup, so why are you bringing it up?

    but again, when we talk about elaborate festive "days" with guardian demons floating around them, do you at least admit that the two are not 100% exactly the same? even if you consider them somewhat close??

    We're talking about birthdays and makeup. No, they are not exactly the same. But their origins are both described as coming from pagan sources, both originally used in witchcraft and sorcery. That is the parallel that is of significance.

    I looked for more sources for my claim that makeup is of pagan origin. Here are some that I found: (subscription)

    (That last one requires a subscription, but I include it because it is a more respectable source.)

    You say that only pagans did that SORT of thing? maybe you say that only pagans or apostate Israel did the specific eye paint thing. but as far beautifying with oils and makeup in general. well no, there's some stuff to indicate that faithful servants also did that. Even God, in a good sense, is said to have figuratively adorned and beautified "Israel'.

    Be careful not to overly broaden the topic. To expand from "eye paint" to "appearance embellishment" invites me to expand "birthday" to "celebration in general". The subject under discussion is "birthdays" and "eye paint", let's keep to that.

    OK now what about for professed "Christians"? you mention your research where some people assert for sure that the very very very very very very first invention of "eye paint" was originally only specifically definitively for warding off spirits. we know that for sure because? archeological evidence?

    You know, I don't know how the Britannica folks know about that stuff. I just cite them as a reference and hope they're right. Does the Watchtower do it differently?

    well here's some archeological evidence that Israelites used eye paint too. Archaeologists in Israel and nearby have found makeup containers, as well as applicators and mirrors. Women in the ancient Orient, INCLUDING ANCIENT ISRAELITES, used cosmetics that anticipated many of today’s products. With no specific censure from any of the prophets or rabbis, per se. Also, a little tid-bit. The name of Job’s daughter Keren-happuch likely meant “Horn of the Black (Eye) Paint,” or a container for eye makeup.—Job 42:13-15.

    Have you considered the implications of what you're saying? Makeup has origins in false worship and magic. And yet you point out that God's people did it. You further mention that no one is ever chastised for doing so. Do you realize that birthdays fall into that same category? They have pagan origins, and no one was ever chastised for celebrating one. None of the loaded language you use to describe birthdays was used in the Bible. Like makeup, they were mentioned in passing on both occasions.

    Also, you say so assuredly that Jezebel did not necessarily use "excessive" makeup. cuz it doesn't say the exact words "too much" in the text. well there is such thing as logical inference from OTHER things in the text. analyze it honestly and carefully. the story of Jezebel suggests that she put so much black paint around her eyes that it would be noticed from a distance, even by Jehu outside the palace. What is the lesson? Do not put on makeup with a heavy hand, in an exaggerated way.

    Actually, my basis for saying Jezebel's use of makeup was not excessive comes from the fact that God's Word says the things she did to herself made her "beautiful". If her culture thought it was beautiful to smear black paint all over her face, then it wouldn't have been excessive. "Excess" isn't an amount, it's an amount in contrast to what is accepted. If she took it to excess, would God have recorded that she was "beautiful"?

    There is no indication in that run of verses (2Kings 9:30-32) that Jehu even noticed her makeup. He recognized her, but makeup had nothing to do with that. They were close enough together to talk to one another. Can you honestly infer a quantity of makeup applied from these verses?

    I red your website reference with much amusement.

    Yeah, Fundamentalist Christians are pretty whacked, I agree. But they also happen to be the only people that care about nit-picky stuff like this. For instance, when I went to various encyclopedias, I couldn't find significant references to pagan origins for makeup OR birthdays. The only places these alleged pagan origins were described were in obscure older books, or quotes from encyclopedias that I don't have at hand to examine.

    Odd, isn't it? No evidence from a reliable source for the pagan origins of makeup OR birthdays. Hmmmm...

    whereas the documented evidence and archeological data on birthday celebrations with their trappings is irrefutable as for its pagan demonic overtones and blatant connections and rituals and customs.

    SS, have you ever actually seen this "documented evidence"? Not quotes of the evidence from a third party, but actually looked into the pages of an encyclopedia to confirm what they say? I haven't. I tried last night. I bought a subscription to Brittanica Online and World Book Encyclopedia. Other than one reference to pagan origins for makeup in the Britannica, there wasn't anything to be found. No pagan origins for birthdays at all, and only scant info on makeup.

    I agree with the Scriptural principle quoted at the bottom of that web page "have no fellowship with darkness but rather REPROVE (or correct, point out, rebuke, or condmemn) them." (Ephesians 5:11).

    Look, if I stipulate to the fact that the Bible says not to do bad things, will you agree to quit taking up space quoting scriptures that say so? I think we can agree that "bad things" are bad. The question at hand is "ARE birthdays one of the bad things?" If you establish they are, then all these scriptures you keep quoting about tables of demons and whatnot will apply. Until then, they are meaningless and make your posts that much longer.

    for the Scriptural indication that God has a bigger problem with "elaborateness" and "festivals" and "magical nonsense tied in, and mixed in"? just one passage for now will suffice. (Isaiah 1:13-14) " 13 Stop bringing in any more valueless grain offerings. Incense—it is something detestable to me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of a convention—I cannot put up with the use of uncanny power (referring to magic and spells and necromancy and so forth) along with the solemn assembly. 14 YOUR new moons and YOUR festal seasons my soul has hated. To me they have become a burden; I have become tired of bearing [them]."

    The scripture you cite indicates God hates the use of "uncanny power". You have not yet shown that makeup doesn't have the same level of "uncanny power" associated with it that birthdays do. You've said it over and over, but you've yet to actually prove it. If the Watchtower wants to use the above scripture to say things of pagan origin are not for Christians, then well and good. But apply that rule evenly -- makeup, windchimes, wedding veils, etc. All or nothing.

    There's a certain formalized and "elaborate" element to that sort of thing.

    True, but no more so than the formalized and elaborate elements of a baby shower, which the Watchtower does not condemn. Or a wedding feast, which the Bible itself speaks highly of. How many people do you think were in attendance at the wedding feast Jesus attended? How much planning, how much money was spent, how many decorations? I seriously doubt I put that much into Zach's last birthday party. Elaborate, but not condemned. Why?

    I'll throw in a few more, in general:
    (Ezekiel 14:3-5) dungy idols
    (Ezekiel 20:16) rejected my own judicial decisions..dungy idols

    Both of these are "don't do bad things" scriptures, which only apply to things established as "bad". Hold this stuff until we prove whether birthdays are bad or not, then you can whip these out.

    but I wanted to also say that AGAIN, I don't and the WatchTower does not put Birthday celebrations on the same level as "thou shalt not murder, steal, defraud, lie, or sleep with another man, and adulterate" etc. per se. even with the blatant pagn demonic elements so clearly tied and mixed in. of course not.

    Could a person be an elder, and still celebrate his birthday? Could he pioneer? Could an unbaptized person qualify for baptism? No. So whether or not it's a DF'ing question isn't the point. The point is "does the God of the Bible mind if Christians celebrate birthdays?" Presumably a Christian would be more concerned with making God happy than whether or not a man-made organization puts a gold star on his publisher card or not.

    but anyway, if you can provide harder better things and evidence. then MAYBE you have a valid plea about your '4th point' of paganism with eye paint. maybe.

    See quoted sources above, and the fact that neither birthdays nor makeup are as well established as we believed at the outset. Equally poorly established, I think is probably the best way to put it.

    but even you cannot get around the point about the "elaborateness" and "festive" junk element, that IS to be seen in Scripture, if carefully examined. Isaiah 1,2; Ezekiel; Jeremiah; 1,2 Corinthians, etc. take care.

    This is YOUR point, SS. To make it, you'll need to do better than mention a book of the Bible, or even a chapter. Give me a verse you think shows that God condemns elaborate festivity. Not "idolatrous festivity", since idolatrous anything is condemned. You need to show that elaborate festivity in and of itself is condemned by God. Can you point to such a scripture?

    birthday celebrations UNQUESTIONABLY have pagan demonic baggage and even ROOTS. check these sources:

    Actually, I would like to. I really would. Have YOU checked them? I had a fair whack of trouble finding any of them.

    The History of the Christian Religion and Chruch, During the First Three Centuries (New York, 1848) Augustus Neander (translated by Henry John Rose), page 140 "The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general."

    This one isn't available at the library, but it is available at for $20-$30. (Maybe I'll get one for my birthday?)

    "The Imperial Bible Dictionary" (London, 1874), edited by Patrick Fairbairn, Vol. I, p. 225 "The...Hebrews looked on the celebratoin of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship a view which would be abundantly confirmed by what they saw of the common OBSERVANCES associated with these days."

    This one isn't available at the library, on ebay, or on This one is particularly suspect because the author suggests that he is drawing a conclusion about what the Jews WOULD HAVE thought about birthdays, given their environment. Conjecture would be a far cry from proof, but without access to the book, it's impossible to say for sure.

    "The Lore of Birthdays" (New York, 1952), Ralph and Adelin Linton, pages 8, 18-20 "The Greeks believed that everyone ha da protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth ... The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks....Honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were placed on the temple altars of [Artemis]"

    This one is actually available here in Columbus, Ohio. There is one used copy on for $99, but I'm not popping for it. It is available from my library, but only for in-library use. When I get a chance, I'll pop in and see if I can find this reference.

    "The World Book Encyclopedia" (Volume 3, page 416)
    "The early Christians did not celebrate His [Christ’s] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom."

    This one is the most interesting of all. As I mentioned, I bought a subscription to World Book Online so I could look up this very article. But it wasn't there. I even searched on a few phrases from the quote, but it just isn't there. When I'm at the library for the other book, I'll dig through their copies of worldbook and see if I can find anything. Without stating the edition of World Book, the volume and page isn't very helpful, but I'll see what I can find.

    Does it strike you as odd that these other Christian groups say that makeup and birthdays are pagan and cite various sources, but you can't find any evidence of this in more reputable sources? Have you ever seen evidence of it in a reputable source? (reputable = a source that a non-JW would consider authoritative)

    I'm not really convinced (yet) that you'll find the same solid proof and documentation per se against "eye paint" and solid evidence of its true actual origin, in the sense of "it was originally invented for witchcraft and warding off evil spirits".

    So far, I've found only slightly more proof of the pagan origins of makeup than for birthdays. Other than Watchtower publications, what has your research shown?

    did you get it this time, Mr Little Toe?? did you read it this time?

    Your posts are generally full of insults, loaded language, and specific references to other posters. I've carefully avoided returning evil for evil, but I really would appreciate it if you would stick to the facts of this debate and not fire off personal attacks. I can take it -- as can the others, I'm sure -- but I have to read your entire post before I can reply. To fluff them out with this stuff is to waste both your time and mine.

    If someone insults you, just ignore it. Be the bigger man. Turn the other cheek. (Silently)

    and that's the problem with talking to apostates... they are stubborn and hardened and worldly and rebellious and "Korah-like" (Numbers 16; Jude 11,12)

    I'm not being stubborn. You aren't, either. We have opposing viewpoints and we are debating the facts supporting them. In the end, we may reach a point where we both are looking at exactly the same set of facts, but we come to different conclusions. If we reach that point, we agree to disagree and part as friends. There's nothing stubborn about disagreeing with someone.

    I look forward to your reply.


  • LittleToe
    ok, the gloves come off and this is addressed only to YOU here

    Darn, now I'm in trouble... "Run Awayyyyyy!"

    Funny that you call me a demon - my wife used to call me that - are you colluding

    I wonder, would you be happy accepting birthdays if there were no candles involved? Just a nice little get-together with non-alcoholic punch and a buffet with or without cake?


    LT---LMAO!!!!!!! Thankyou for the laughs in regards to your above posts! I really needed it today with all the insanity that is going around on this board lately!


    P.S. I think a lot of posters are in need of your mental heath expertise, seriously!

  • LittleToe

    SS:Oh, and btw, I referred to the passsage in Corinthians in relation to your judgemental attitude, not to the topic of Birthdays. Your sidestep into Colossians shows that you've entirely missed the point... again... and again... and again...

    On another note, are you a wannabe Elder? May I assure you that I've been there and done that, and it's really not worth the effort...

    I'm sorry to say that he doesn't seem to understand that makeup was used in pagan practises, used by those condemned in the bible and was specifically singled out by the Apostle Paul as something to avoid and hence has got more negativity surrounding it that Birthdays. I don't think it's because he has limited intellectual ability, but rather than his wife wears it and there would be hell to pay if he told her to stop.

    It's maybe unsurprising to what level "principles" can be molded by one of whom it can be said "hell hath no fury like...".

    Glad to be of service

  • sweetscholar

    hi. AlmostAtheist. I appreciate your last response. that's why, even though I have fundamental differences with you and a lot of your positions, at least you're like 100 times more reasonable and rational and honest than that mental case demonized nut, who calls himself "Little Toes".

    maybe he didn't carefully read that YOU, a person who has serious doubts about this whole birthday thing, understands that Colossians 2 (which was referring to not keeping JEWISH feasts that God Himself commanded, unlike pagan Christmas) cannot be reasonably or honestly used as an alibi to keep pagan Christmas with all its DEFINITE junk and worldliness and paganism and corruption mixed and mingled in, or formal birthday celebrations. you understand that clear point, Almost. of course Little Fart does not want to agree with either you or me. at least not on that and a few other things. that's what happens when you try to directly communicate with a fool who has the IQ of an onion. whose wife or ex-wife called him a demon. no need for "collusion" with that. not when it's so obvious to see.

    but anyway, Almost, I hope you look at all the words I wrote about your so-called proof that "eye paint" is so solidly definitively from witchcraft, the same solid undoubted way that the customs of birthday celebrations originate and "stem" and have real roots in. Paul said "adorn yourselves well arranged". he didn't say "don't adorn yourselves at all."

    and there are things in the Bible (though not specifically with "eye paint" per se) that show servants of Jehovah doing themselves up and beautifying their skin and taking care of their hair and jewelry etc. in other words, along the same TYPE of lines.

    but nowhere is any servant of Jehovah clearly formalizing his birthday with any celebration, in the Bible.

    and again, you made this thing about "well the culture of the Jews". and I said a few times now that the culture of the Jews was inter-changeable with the RELIGION of the Jews. their culture was their religion. and their religion was their culture.

    but other nations and peoples round about them, at the same time, had "culture" too. and they chronically celebrated their birthdays. as part of their pagan "culture." which is what Little Pagan Toes subscribes too ultimately. He's a disciple of Herod Antipas, and not of Christ Jesus. a follower of Alexander the "Great" (the bi-sexual Greek pagan maniac), not of Isaiah or Moses or of Paul the Apostle.

    the website you quoted (an uptight hypocritical selective protestant website) and cited is somewhat weak, with quotes that are ambiguous and reckless. "it's said that it stemmed..."

    the point is that there is too much evidence and historical data to PROVE beyond question (though Toe Brain "questions it" without saying why specifically or what honest sold grounds he has to "question it") that birthday celebration customs are corrupt and un-Biblical and worldly and warped and demonic and pagan and spiritistic and not just un-Scriptural but also ANTI-Biblical. that's not just conjecture. whereas the "eye paint" demonic origin notion is so conjecturish and flimsy it's like not funny. at least from what I can see so far.

    etc. I wrote all this and more in previous posts, which please see in the previous pages too. if you have not done so.

    again, though. I'm glad that you see that Colossians 2 and 1 Corinthians 2 have no honest bearing on pagan Christmas and/or pagan voodooistic birthday celebrations. Jewish feasts and holidays that were once sanctioned and commanded by God cannot be compared to pagan "Mother's Day" or "St Valentine's Day" or demonic "Halloween" or pagan bastardized hybrid warped corrupt "Christmas" Sun God Saturnalia and Tree worship day, or even pagan worldly birthday celebrations. and the context in Colossians shows that Paul was saying let no man judge you if you DON'T keep those Jewish feasts, not if you do !!!! so it's even less of a usable thing. duhh.

    and 1 Corinthians is even more idiotic in a way. because it says that the SPIRITUAL man is not "judged" or "examined" by a worldly jerk on the outside really. but it doesn't mean that a spiritual true Christian cannot assess and discern what is righteous or wicked, pure or pagan. otherwise, why did Stephen call people like Little Schmo "hypcrites and vipers", if there is no "judging" or at least "assessing" the willfully ignorant and dishonest and hypocritical??

    yes, Little Toe is a "demon" in a sense (or at least very demonized), and so are some of the other characters on here, who come out with weak silly nonsense remarks, like that schnuck who said "pagans ate fruit, so we're not to do that either" duhhhhh.

    cuz of blatant dishonesty and and bonehead comparisons, in a pathetic attempt to justify their crap in their ungodly lives.

    used as alibi for sin, or as a meager excuse for not shedding paganism or corruption.

    "eating fruit" is what servants of Jehovah did too. but they NEVER celebrated their birthdays in a formalized cockeyed way in the Bible.

    "eye paint" notwithstanding.

    people in this corrupt cockeyed world will ultimately do what they WANT to do, not necessarily what the wisest and most honest thing is. and will believe what they WANT to believe, regardless of the true Biblical and historical data on any given subject. for emotional vain silly reasons usually. look at the state of the world. the world's a mess. because people generally do what they want, have Adamic sin nature, and dopey influences around them, and the Devil "misleading the entire inhabited earth." (Revelation 12)

    and ignoring principles and points like in Psalm 106

    Psalm 106:35,36:

    "and they went mingling with the NATIONS,

    and took up learning THEIR WORKS.

    And they kept serving their IDOLS,

    and these came to be a SNARE TO THEM."

    (Psalm 106:35,36;

    see Dueteronomy 32:17 also.)

  • defd

    Wow this is turning ugly. Why dont yall just drop it? Just a suggestion.

    Def D

Share this