Hey SS,
what I said was why would Jezebel apply ANY makeup on her face if it was not gonna be seen?????? it was not that Jehu and others down below was able to see HER, but had to be able to see HER MAKEUP, cuz otherwise what would have been thre freakin point of Jezebel appying anything on herself,
You pointed out earlier that Job's children's "day" wasn't a birthday because if it was, God's word would have said so. Now, when God's word doesn't say what you want it to say, you're willing to infer things. You seem very convinced of the idea that her makeup was excessive, which I find interesting. It is a "belief" you hold, a "faith" of sorts. There's no logical argument I can put forth against "faith".
So let's look at it from another angle. Let's say her makeup WAS excessive. Are you saying that we should infer from the account that a servant of God should not wear excessive makeup?
If so, could we not say that it wasn't the birthday celebrations that the Bible is condemning, but the excessive way they were held? After all, there were murders at both. Perhaps God is trying to tell us that if we hold a party, we shouldn't kill anybody at it. Probably good advice, on the whole.
Do you see how the two arguments are equivalent? If I decide ahead of time that makeup is bad and birthdays are good, I can reason one way. If I decide they are both bad, I can reason another. But in the end, it was my preconceived notions of right and wrong that decided how I would read those accounts, not the other way around. Shouldn't God's Word tell Christians how to act, instead of Christians telling God's Word what to say?
when I said it's not the same as murder or rape or fraud or stealing that does not mean it's as good as praying, preaching, visiting the sick, or looking after orphans, or studying and practicing humility and kindness and love and patience from the Word of God.
Ah, but those are all different things. God's word COMMANDS praying, preaching, and being good to people in need. The question has never been "Does God command us to celebrate birthdays?" The question is, "Does God prefer we not celebrate birthdays?" So to be fair, we should be asking if celebrating a birthday is any worse than other unnecessary things that also have pagan origins such as makeup, windchimes, wedding veils, etc.
and your constant harping on "eye paint" is a bit off the topic anyway. cuz even if you're right about "eye paint" being really demonic (which it really is not), that does not mean that birthday celebrations all of a sudden are not demonic.
That was never the point. The point is that if makeup is "demonic", then why isn't it forbidden by the Watchtower? If birthdays are, then makeup should be. Or they both shouldn't be. See, if they claim to be forbidding stuff based on paganism and the Bible, but I can show that in fact that are just making up arbitrary rules about random things, then it shows that they aren't really following the Bible. It shows they don't have "The Truth".
That's the point.
also, those websites did not say 'eye paint' but rather "evil eye"
Those sources said that eye paint was originally used to ward off the "evil eye". How much clearer can that get? Makeup's original purpose was in a pagan, magical rite to ward off evil. You can question the accuracy of the information, but at least give the information credit for saying what it said.
your argument about "consistency" is well taken, but it falls flat if your "points" about "eye paint" begin to fall apart, given the real differences between "eye paint" as makeup and "adornment" in general, and birthday celebrations customs and crap. they aint the same, Jack.
Here's a good example of a time where you probably think you've addressed something. The point is not addressed when you simply say "they aint' the same". That is called "dismissing" the point. Had you addressed it, you would have pointed to reputable, verifiable sources of information showing that birthdays have pagan origins and makeup does not.
Simply having faith that birthdays are pagan and having faith that makeup isn't doesn't make either one so.
Is this all you intend to do? Be honest with me. Are you going to "address" anything, or are you going to continue to "dismiss" everything?
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.
Tell me, how exactly are you able to divine the motives of Jezebel and Herod from the scriptures? Or is this another unprovable "faith" thing?
If Herod's anything like me, he celebrates his birthday because it's customary to do so. In addition, it's fun. It's a break from the routine. There are a hundred reasons to celebrate a birthday, none of which are bad.
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.
Here are some of the questions raised that you have not addressed. When you address them, please reference them by number so it's clear what point you are speaking to:
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?
4) How can you invent the supposed value of cosmetics, but deny the value attributed to birthdays?
5) Odd, isn't it? No evidence from a reliable source for the pagan origins of makeup OR birthdays. Hmmmm... Would God leave something he takes so seriously in such an ambiguous state? (If you're going to say it isn't ambiguous, be sure to cite verifiable references proving your point.)
6) You said: "whereas the documented evidence and archeological data on birthday celebrations with their trappings is irrefutable" And then I asked: "SS, have you ever actually seen this "documented evidence"?" Can I see it?
7) After you referred to my citations as "kooky", I said, "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?"
8) 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?
9) 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?
Tell you what. Why don't I just stop there. You address those nine points, and we'll pick up from there.
Talk to you later,
Dave
