You are correct Dave. I will do that. Pardon.
No problem, thanks Dude.
now Jezebel had to be seen from far up, and obviously through logical inference, COME ON ALMOST !!!!, it had to be a big load of the stuff on her eyes.
So you're saying that because Jehu could see her, that proves she wore too much makeup? If I am able to see a woman leaning out of a 3rd floor window, would it be reasonable for me to assume that she has too much makeup on, or otherwise I wouldn't see her?
Can you cite a scripture that indicates Jehu noticed her makeup? He saw HER, but there is no indication that anyone noticed her makeup, hair, manner of dress. There was no indication that anything was out of the ordinary. All I'm asking for is a scripture. If you don't have one, and you insist that it's true anyway, wouldn't you be guilty of adding to God's Word? If he wanted it stated that her makeup was excessive, it would have been a simple thing to mention it.
those links are too kooky.
Interesting. When an obscure, out of print book says something about birthdays, you accept it without question. But when an obscure web site says something about makeup, you reject it out of hand. What's your basis for doing either one?
One of the links I listed was from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Are you describing that work as "kooky"?
and your point is taken about out of print hard to find books, but that does not make them less documented.
Hmmm... So if I write something down, it's documented? Don't we need to examine these works to see if the quotes are taken in context, whether the basis for making them was sound, where the author got the information...? Until we have that, I can't agree that it's "documented". I would be more inclined to call it "suggested". After all, if it's that easy, all I have to do is write whatever I want, publish it, then destroy all the copies. Surely anything this important to God has more substantiation than unverifiable quotes?
so how likely is it that many people or historians who even KNOW of the true origins and roots of all the trappings of birthday celebrations want to announce it so much in many reference works nowawdays? of course there's been an element of cover-up with that.
As you pointed out, people in general couldn't care less if birthdays or makeup or number 2 pencils have pagan origins. So why would anyone refrain from revealing it? I seriously doubt any coverup would be involved, simply because no one would care. Besides, we're talking about encyclopedias, dictionarys, "origins" sites -- it's impossible to think they might all collude to withhold the "true history" of anything.
you won't tell me that candles and wish-making and ETCETERA did not come from pagan Greece and Babylon, with superstitious guardian demons all over the place?
Actually, if I could find a reputable source that speaks to the subject either way, I would be happy to tell it to you. As I said, my research didn't yield much. Have you found anything to support or refute either of our positions? (First hand verification, I mean, not quotes)
anyway, Almost, we're going around in circles a wee bit now. your "eye paint" thing is better than "eating fruit" or "bathing" but not really that strong or valid ultimately.
We go around in circles because I can't see where you are answering my questions. I have listed them several times, marked them in red, bolded them. Without questions and answers, a discussion can't move forward. Maybe you have answered them and I just missed it. Of course, that's why I asked you to specify which point (1-5) you were addressing.
I sense we're getting into an uncomfortable position for you, where you recognize the Watchtower's position is not as strong as you believed. There's nothing wrong with that. Don't let it stop you from continuing what has largely been an educational discussion.
you don't seem to understand either that Paul's words "adorn yourselves" DOES have to do with it !!!!!! cuz "adorn" covers all that stuff. not juts necklaces or robes. but anything worn by a woman.
So if a woman wore a cross as adornment, that would be covered by Paul's words? If not, why not? Since Paul didn't directly address makeup, and makeup can be shown to have pagan origins, why would you conclude that a cross would be wrong, but makeup would be covered by a "blanket amnesty" of sorts?
and when I said that servants of Jehovah put make up on in general, and Job's daughter's name this, and archeological evidence uncovered the other, you say "they did something pagan". that's dogmatic of you, cuz you're going into the whole thing still convinced that it was really rooted in paganism, in the same exact or very similar way as BD celebrations customs. which it aint. despite those "evil eye" websites. stretch. "evil eye" with maybe eye paint ADOPTED into that is not quite the same. the point too again is that if archeological evidence and Biblical evidence shows that God's people in Bible times used skin makeup then it's ok
The reason I still feel eye makeup has equal footing with birthdays on the pagan thing is because there is about equal evidence for both. I can't find anything on birthdays in any reputable reference work, and only a less-than-definitive statement on makeup. Among various unauthoritative web sites, I can find pagan origins for both birthdays and makeup.
Do you feel that birthdays are MORE pagan than makeup? If so, what amount of paganism is the cutoff point? How do you know what God will accept and what he will hate? When looking at birthdays, makeup, and windchimes, how do you know to reject the first and allow the rest?
Here's another question that it would be beneficial for you to answer: If we could establish to both our satisfactions that eye makeup DOES have pagan origins -- just hypothetically -- and you feel that the Bible and archaeology shows that God's servants did use eye makeup, then would you accept that as partial evidence that God does not condemn everything that originated in false worship?
and to Almost, yes there is SOME correlation with point 5, not with point 4, cuz you overblow or misapply "pagan origins", and vanity "no value" but you dismiss unreasonably the value and benefits of eye makeup. they are there. ask any woman who has wrinkles or bags I told you.
What about points 1-3? If you see correlation between makeup and birthdays in 4 out of 5 ways, would your "when it doubt, leave it out" rule tell you to reject makeup, too? If not, why not?
As for the value of makeup, I don't say it doesn't have value. I say that birthdays have value, too. So by the definition of vain, birthdays would not be "vain". (Unless you first assert that they are upsetting to God, which would mean you would need to prove that WITHOUT accusing them of being vain. [avoiding circularity]) If you disagree that birthdays have value, please explain. I realize they take time, they cost money, they are disruptive to normal schedules. The same is true of makeup -- time to apply, cost -- so having costs does not equate to not having value.
I've written tons. addressing all the arguments, the valid ones, the semi-valid ones, and even the totally retarded invalid ones.
You have not addressed a variety of valid arguments. I raise questions in every post that you do not address. So in addition to reading all of your information, I have to comb back through my own to see what still hasn't been discussed. It would really aid this discussion if you make an effort to answer the questions.
JW's have a terrible reputation in this regard. Many will "cut and run", making a series of opinionated posts, then never come back to the thread to defend their positions. So far you have hung in there. Don't let yourself fall into this "cut and run" group. See it through.
If I have failed to address a point you've made, please let me know and I will. I apologize in advance for any oversight.