A JW refutation of birthday celebrations

by TheListener 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • M.J.

    Funny but I was reading an argument by Herbert W. Armstrong's present day followers against celebrating birthdays. They actually DO make the case that the "days" celebrated in Job were birthdays, but the calamities that followed were a consequense!

  • jeeprube

    The thing I've never understood about the birthday ban, is the fact that JW's still celebrate wedding anniversaries. A wedding anniversary is nothing more than a celebration of the day a man and women where born into a marriage together. The JW argument that celebrating birthdays puts undue emphasis on a person when all focus should be on Jehovah, should also apply to anniversaries.

  • cyberguy

    JW’s DO celebrate birthdays, that is they celebrate the actual birth of a child with a "birthday shower." Think about it! Although it is celebrated prior or just after the actual birth of the child, obviously the celebration is centered on the actual birth of the child. Presents are usually given, yes? -- Often this is includes a meal with family and friends. And oh-my, isn't cake normally served!

    Somehow, if this same celebration is repeated a year later, it is considered such an egregious act against God that judicial action is a certainty, with a possible "stoning" (by DF’ing) of those that participated. Makes perfect sense to me! – NOT!!!!

  • FreeWilly

    You have to love the logic. Since two birthday celebrations in the Bible had bad things happening, it must be wrong.

    That's called SUPERSTITION!

  • Quentin

    I cannot imagine God in heaven being concerned with wether we mortals celebrate a birthday. Just shows me that the Bible can be used to construct any kind of goofy doctorine. Someone will come along and belive it. I know I did.

  • peacefulpete

    It just occurred to me that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is regarded as an interpolation to the text. Read the context ommitting the section and it flows without a crease. Also the vocabulary in not Paul's. There are 6 words here that don't occur elsewhere, Paul elsewhere consistantly refers to the evil demon as Satan not Belial. There are other reasons to believe Paul did not write this section. The associations with Qumran doctrine and terminolgy is remarkable enough for some to suggest that the section was a Christianized rewrite of a Qumran liturgy. Anyway someday this key text for sectarian Christians might be worth a thread.

Share this