Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist 173 Replies latest jw friends

  • Super_Becka

    Let's see, I'm not offended, I'm just taken aback by your lack of, shall we say, tact, in your arguments. How old are you, anyway?? I mean, really, name-calling and condescending language is really third-grade. We're all mature adults here, like it or not, and some of us appreciate adult discussions.

    And not once have I posted a reply here in which I laughed at anyone. I've asked a couple of questions, but I never laughed. That was another poster, not me. I happen to take this forum and many of its threads very seriously.

    But of course, I guess there's really not much point of me even posting here for you now, you said that you're done with this thread. I'm not surprised - I guess you've dodged our questions as much as you could with your rhetoric and circular reasoning, so it's time to quit while you're ahead.

    Well, thanks anyway for the amusing, if very hypocritical, posts, I'm sure we all enjoyed them.

    -Becka :)

  • sweetscholar

    like that britannica website whatever it was, didn't even say "eye paint" in that page I saw. just "evil eye" hexes and whatever. hence "kooky" for you to cite them. and even if some made a connection to "eye paint" per se. adoption is like whatever.

    what I will say is I thought it was already understood that God does not condemn everything that non-believers or pagans invented in history. wedding rings, cars, computers, eye paint, whatever.

    but to dogmatically say that eye paint was invented originally (check this out) FOR THE SOLE ORIGINAL PURPOSE originally for warding off spirits has no backing and solid evidence. even (and get this) if it was used later on with that in mind. was it originally invented for that express purpose? nay, the evidence is lacking for that.

    it was invented for simple facial enhancement and coloring and make up. Jezebel did not apply it on her eyes to ward off spirits. you admitted that

    but Herod celebrated his birthday FOR GOOD LUCK AND FORTUNE AND VANITY. now, do you see the differences??

    don't tell me that Herod did not believe in the Grecian concepts of birthday boy and fortune and hocus pocus. he was an Edomite schmuck and flunky of Rome. the Greek practice PRE-CEDED Herod.

    now to wearing crosses. I'm surprised at you. cuz that goes into idolatry, not just adornment issues. if there was no background of "Tammuz" or the Tau god then probably not.

    also a side point, Christ maybe have been killed and nailed on a cross-shaped Torture Stake. maybe a one-piece stake. "stavros" was a broad term denoting stakes of varying shapes and styles. we know the Romans used both one piece and double beamed stakes. that's a minor point. the key thing is it had to be a wooden post to begin with. for the curse to be lifted off the Jews (Deuteronomy 21:23; Galatians 3:13)

    another topic of course.

    you're wrong though. people who celebrated birthdays would care about it not getting out too much that BD celebrations were a pagan anti-Biblical non-Christian custom, with all its trappings. most people who put the reference works together profess some form of Christianity, a lot of times. not always, but enough. how would it look if they admitted and publicized that what they're doing every year with themselves and with others is questionable or pagan or impure or unholy or un-Biblical or un-Christian???? yet the facts and truth of the custom has come out anyway, from a number of sources, and archeological and historical discoveries. making a wish to a Greek or Druid god or demon is not compatible with separated pure Christian behavior in the Bible. even if that's not necessarily the way people who do it now view it. it's not an alibi for the ignorance, the willfull ignorance, to continue.

    good day.

  • ellderwho

    SS, I was reading some of your previous posts', the following caught my eye:

    SS: although JWs are not Calvinists (thank God) there is some truth to what Calvin said about "total depravity" of the will and nature of man.

    What do you feel is the "some truth" of what Calvin asserts, re: total depravity?

    BTW if you ask one of the jw r/f who Calvin is, or what does Arminian mean, the average Jw will not know what your talking about. So I find it interesting you would have thoughts regarding John Calvin and so forth.
    SS: and biased protestant hypocritical website, with no documented anything, but mere conjectures and reckless quotes.

    Im offended you ingnored my post.

  • sweetscholar

    but I must take issue. you're so wrong on what you said it's like not funny. no, not everyone here is a mature adult. that's silly. Little Toes is definitely not. Almost is though. he's ok

    and I ask you, how have I "dodged" anything?? what specifically was so "circular" about anything I said? no. you're just asserting that I dodged.

    I addressed EVERYTHING that AlmostAtheist has asked me and pointed out to me. if I have not. if I truly truly "dodged" then point out specifically in all my postings on this thread that that's so. that should be interesting.

    you rudely and schmuckishly dismiss everything I wrote as 'dodging' and 'circular' without pointing out how that is so. YOU JUST MERELY ASSERTED THAT I DID THAT.

    when Little Toe asked me about human emotions and if they're all naturally bad, I answered and addressed it. that does not mean that he necessarily liked the answer I gave. but that does not mean the same as "dodging."

    all the things about eye paint and Herod and "pagans ate fruit too" I answered. how "eating fruit" is NOT the same as birthday celebrations, given that servants of God ate fruit in the Bible but never celebrated birthdays. how was that "dodging everything"??? be careful with your accusations. cuz you're guilty of what you're accusing me of. which I never did. and anyway, don't be so thin-skinned. Little Toes had that coming. he's NOT a mature adult. he's a sarcastic arrogant fool.

    when "let no man judge" was brought up, I did NOT "dodge" it, but rather addressed it as "Jewish feasts that God commanded, not pagan feasts". was that a "dodge" too? because you don't like it? AlmostAtheist did not think I was "dodging" it but he admits I basically addressed these things. watch your own words and reckless accusations.

    I answered all the points thrown at me. even AlmostAtheist admitted that a lot of what I said was Biblically true. he and I are stuck on the eye paint disagreement, but not really on much anything else, concerning this topic.

    and where specifically was there any real "circularity" in any of what I said??? I never said here "the Watchtower condmens birthday celebrations and the Watchtower is always right." when did you read that from any of my posts??? or anything like that? the premise of the argument which Almost brought up is IF the Bible is true. that's the premise. don't accuse me of "circularity" without pointing out, chapter and verse, in black and white, just HOW I was doing that. cuz then you're just full of lamebrain biased accusations and hot air.

    so please, spare me Becka. and another thing. if you are just gonna whine about things I do that are not even true, don't say anything to me again. I don't have time for an intellectually dishonest and biased over-sensitive thin-skinned apostate like you. most of my postings on this thread have NOT been "name-calling" but just stated things, cordial and civil. I only went off on Little Man and Jeffy for their blatant retarded hypocrisy and silliness. and yours too.

    again, if you can't point out (and I know you won't) where I was actually genuinely "dodging" then kindly shut up. you're taking this "seriously"?? well if you think everyone on here is a "mature adult" then you're delirious. not really serious.

    and I know you won't point out anything specifically I "dodged" or just how I "dodged" cuz there really isn't anything. you'll just dodge yourself, and claim that you won't have time to point out anything to me, blah blah. convenient dodge on your part.

    if you have a point to make about birthday celebrations though, you'll see that I WON'T "dodge" the point, but will try to address it. but all you've done with me is whine about my "tone" and accuse me of things I really didn't do. which is off the thread topic anyway.

    I doubt I'll hear anything substantive from you on this topic. or any real evidence that I "dodged" anything. if your next posting to me is retarded and unreasonable like your last one, then you will be ignored by me. good day. (again, point out a real "dodge" from me, and maybe we'll talk.)

  • sweetscholar

    but I was not "dodging" you as Becka dopishly asserted. by the way, the one who was laughing was Jeannie, not Becka. that was my mistake, cuz their posts were close together on the other page.

    anyway, I thought I already said just how Calvin had "some truth". in that man has a sin nature and depraved in many ways. but he went to far thinking that not just man's NATURE was in "bondage" but also man's "WILL" which it really is not. man's will can be different than his nature. like Paul said 'when I WISH to do what is right (the will), what is bad is present IN me (the sinful Adamic nature)." you can will something, but your weak sinful nature gets in the way. Christ said "the spirit, indeed, is willing (referring to man's will and spirit and desire), but the FLESH (the sinful human nature) is weak." weak for righteousness, but strong for sin. Cavlin said that even man's will was totally depraved no matter what. and believed that God over-ran man's will to save him, by a theological invention called "irresistible grace". no. man's nature is depraved and sinful, but not NECESSARILY his 'will' per se. I can want to do something, but my nature may get in the way. they're not necessarily the same.

    hence why I said that Calvin had SOME truth to what he said.

    you see. Becka. I did not "dodge" his question. he might not necessarily agree with my position or my answer, but that does NOT mean that I "dodged" his question. get a grip. ok. and read and re-read the other postings by me and others. there was no real "dodging" or even "circularity" in what I said. that does not mean that my every word was perfect necessarily either. but not what you accused me of. by the way, did you know that Satan is called the great "accuser" in Scripture?? (Job 1,2,3; Revelation 12) with no sound backing or warrant. so guess who your father is. tootles. (I hope Jeannie laughs at this one.)

  • ellderwho
    SS: Christ said "the spirit, indeed, is willing (referring to man's will and spirit and desire), but the FLESH (the sinful human nature) is weak." weak for righteousness, but strong for sin.

    I thought all were under sin and none are good, no not one. Is not the carnel mind of man at emnity with God and is not subjected to the laws God.

    man's will can be different than his nature.


  • Super_Becka

    Ooo, you do have a sharp tongue, don't you?? I hope you're not trying to hurt my feelings, because you're failing miserably, and you're certainly not giving me any warm, fuzzy feelings about the WTS, either. Call me whatever you like, it's not going to bother me, though I'm sure it makes you feel better. It's sad that you have to stoop to degrading others to make yourself feel good about yourself and your faith. Get over your superiority complex I hate to break it to you, but God created us all equal, so you're no better than any of us. Deal with it.

    I'm Satan's daughter, am I?? Now who's accusing who?? You interpreted my comment as being an accusation, so I'm going to interpret yours as being an accusation. Like it or not, you just accused me of being Satan's offspring. Right back at ya, pal. I know who my Heavenly Father is and I happen to have a very personal relationship with him, no earthly middlemen. Can you say the same??

    You can stick with the WTS and preach their ever-changing doctrines and hypocrisy, that's your own personal decision, but when I go to church on Christmas Eve with my family to celebrate Christ's birth, I'll be sure to think of you as I'm giving praise to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and I'll pray for God to have mercy on your eternal soul as the reverend blesses the congregation in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, more affectionately known as the Holy Trinity. Merry Christmas.


    -Becka :)

  • sweetscholar

    not all in Protestantism or Christendom are hyper-Calvinists.

    what's not to understand? a man's "will" is not the same necessarily as his sinful "nature."

    I guess you subscribe to Calvinism, I don't know

    but yes, I said "some truth" to what he said.

    Paul said "when I WISH (will, the "will") to do right, what is bad is present with me." meaning the inner nature is sinful and corrupt and Adamic. no kidding.

    but to say that that extends to the entire "will" of a man is a bit of a stretch, and not all that Biblical, since God commands people to obey and believe and etc, and so forth. "free will" is a Bible term. see Ezra and Exodus. and even Matthew 23. and Romans.

    so no. a man's "will" can be different than his nature. how many times do you want to do something, but your "weak flesh" gets in the way? what's hard to understand about that?

    and did a girl named Becka say something? I only red like 2 words of her last posting. and saw that it was rude crap, and bypassed it.

    but no, JWs are not hyper-Calvinists, nor should they be. the Watchtower aint infallible, but bases its contents on God's Word. JWs are not hyper-predestinationists. or "irresistible grace" bunk and philosophy. people are not forced against their will be some eternal divine decree to believe and repent.

    anyway, take care. I'm not dodging you as you can see, even if you don't agree with the answers necessarily. bye.

  • Super_Becka

    Maybe you didn't like my post, but you certainly noticed it and even acknowledged it. My work here is done.

    And I've had more than enough of stooping to your level to play your little game, especially because it's clear that you'll never admit that one of us non-JWs might actually have a point. I'm gonna stick with being my diplomatic, polite, non-confrontational, free-thinking and well-informed self before I get myself banned. I've degraded myself enough for one thread anyway. Believe me, you're not worth it.

    -Becka :)

  • ellderwho
    the Watchtower aint infallible, but bases its contents on God's Word.

    But Gods word is infallible. I can find any fallible org.

    people are not forced against their will be some eternal divine decree to believe and repent.

    What does it mean to be a vessel of wrath, made fit for destruction?

Share this