Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist 173 Replies latest jw friends

ellderwho

Yeah I hear ya.
He might be mixing a little bit of Luther in there as well.
Btw "Bondage of the Will" great read. Recommended by the Dog.
sweetscholar

no hard feelings I hope. anyway, the expression "bonage of the will" is nowhere found in Scripture. I guess I was wrong about Little Toes. there IS something we do agree with on this forum. we don't believe God causes and determines every "elect" and "reprobate" action that has taken place, by "eternal decrees."
also, Almost. sorry if I seemed to 'dodge' a couple of your things. but I meant 'dodge' more in the sense of never really speaking to those things at all.
and maybe you overlooked it, but I DID address the "vanity" "no value" thing. yes, that's one main definition for that. and I said that eye shadow can have some value or use. that you seem to easily "dismiss."
I said that I understand your point about "consistency" with the WT. and I said throughout that you're sharp and reasonable and that your point about "eye paint" is definitely better than the weak desperate "well pagans ate fruit too and urinated and took baths" nonsense that has sometimes been said on this thing.
but not quite the same as BD celebrations and customs. you seem to dismiss the logical and simple inference that Jezebel put stuff on her face FOR A REASON AND TO BE SEEN, AND WOULD MAKE NO SENSE IF THE STUFF SHE TOOK TIME AND EFFORT TO PUT ON WAS NOT GONNA BE NOTICED FROM HIGH UP ANYWAY. so yeah, it's likely it was somewhat "excessive" though she made herself up with hair and whatever to look better overall.
I say "it aint" because can you really honestly definitely pinpoint for SURE that eye paint was ORIGINALLY invented for the sole and only original purpose to "ward off evil spirits" instead of just a facial enhancement ORIGINALLY?? or was it more likely later ADOPTED LATER ON for "warding off spirits" and whatever? and some folks on FUNNY MENTALIST PROTESTANT websites who forbid all kinds of makeup are making a stretch in order to suit their uptight stance on all makeup??
that was what I was saying. don't say that I "dodged" you when you took SO MUCH TIME to write to your points. not perfectly I know, but overall not trying to be dismissive or evasive. so please. don't exaggerate things. I wrote TONS to you more than to anybody, trying hard to see your arguments and take them point by point. not perfectly admittedly. but I tried. but I got no kudos from for that. though I've praised you quite a bit in my postings. thanks a lot. ssheeeeshh.
anyway, as I said, Calving had some intersting points, but was off his rocker in various ways. and to Little Toes. make no mistake. I know what Calvinism is. and hyper-Calvinism. I've studied it for YEARS. heard and red both sides of the tale. Charles Haddon Spurgeon overall was a moderate Calvinist, although at times he would act "hyper" with it. James White is a 5-point Tulip-Sniffing hyper-Calvinist if there ever was one. and so is R.C. Sproul. (though Sproul uses language like "God permitted" which John Calvin would not like. Read his "Institutes On The Christian Religion")
Calvin had his theology so screwed up that you'd need a cork-screw to get it unplugged. as far as true Scriptural accuracy, John Calvin's "five points" are theological BLANK.
the Bible knows no such thing as "bondage of the will". otherwise many passages in both "Testaments" make no sense, and makes God an unreasonable tyrant. bondage of the flesh and nature, yes. "slaves to sin". but "when I WISH WISH WISH (WILL) TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT IS BAD IS IN (THE NATURE) OF ME". Paul "willed" but his "nature" got in the way. so no, not necessarily the same thing.
"He that willeth" in Romans 9 has been explained, but apparently summarily and arrogantly and unreasonably dismissed by the Tulip-Sniffers. so there's just so much I can say and write about it.
also, Romans 9 needs to be looked in context of Paul's whole thing about Israel being cut off and Gentiles being grafted in.
a text without a context is a pre-text.
as I said, Calvin was a very shallow student of the Scriptures. any man that would burn another man at the stake over disagreements about the "trinity" doctrine is not a very careful student of the Bible and not a good follower of the "New Testament."
any man who sprinkled babies, and wanted to impose a Church-State Theocracy, imposing the Laws of Moses as found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, can't be looked at as consistent, Biblical, or reasonable. it's true. he tried in Geneva to implement the Mosaic Torah on the state !!!! so much for "living under grace."
but as far as his "5 points" there are elements of truth IN ALL 5. yes there is a certain "predestination", but of CLASSES of people, and only after Genesis 1:1, and predicated too on FOREKNOWLEDGE.
yes, there's a "perseverence of the saints" but only as a class, not individuals per se. "once saved always saved" is un-Biblical non-Scriptual unreasonable heretical NONSENSE. Matthew 24; 2 Peter; Romans 2; Hebrews 5-8; Revelation 3,4, etc etc,
yes God's Grace is needed, but that does not preclude individual choice and responsibility. and God's "call" and commands are not just for show. there's no such thing as "God's hidden will" as opposed to God's "revealed will". that's un-Biblical speculation and philosophy. a non-Scriptural heresy.
I'm busy now. so that's all I can say about it at this point. if you want to believe that God foreordains every single thing per se, and every individual who will be saved was "eternally decreed" before Genesis 1:1, even before they were born, to be saved, and those "damned" were determined by God to be "damned", regardless of what so many Verses throughout the Bible say against that insane distorted notion, then knock yourself out.
JWs are not Calvinists (thank God) nor are they really "Arminians" totally either. But rather they're Bible-believing Christians. though 90% of you on this site rave against that statement. lol. anyway, nice chatting. have to go now. maybe I'll see you later.
and also, Almost, I did address your stuff for the most part. not perfectly every line, but it was more that you didn't like the answers more than that I "dodged" your points. vanity vanity. no value. this value. whatever. they aint exactly the same. adornment whatever. ciao. I can't keep going on and on forever about this one topic. and that's not a "dodge" cuz I've already written tons every day for almost 2 weeks. let's agree to disagree at least in part.
I'm glad though that you agree with certain things that I've written. anyway, nice seeing you again Little Toes.
bye.
AlmostAtheist

I say "it aint" because can you really honestly definitely pinpoint for SURE that eye paint was ORIGINALLY invented for the sole and only original purpose to "ward off evil spirits" instead of just a facial enhancement ORIGINALLY?? or was it more likely later ADOPTED LATER ON for "warding off spirits" and whatever? and some folks on FUNNY MENTALIST PROTESTANT websites who forbid all kinds of makeup are making a stretch in order to suit their uptight stance on all makeup??

let's agree to disagree at least in part.

See, you haven't actually provided anything to support your position. I can agree that you disagree with me if you want to just quit, but I have shown you WHY I feel the way I feel, and you've only told me WHAT you feel. I can't honestly say I disagree with you because I have yet to see any evidence for why you believe it.
To those looking on, those lurkers that are reading and deciding if they still believe the Watchtower or not, this may be a ground-breaking thread. They may be looking on, waiting for you to present evidence supporting the Watchtower's position.
But instead, you just keep repeating your position, without backing it up.
Here's my contention on the "pagan" bit: There is equal verifiable documentation supporting the idea that birthday celebrations and makeup are of pagan origin. From that I conclude that if one were to be displeasing to god for its pagan origin, both would be.
Here's my evidence: Several websites already cited, and a reference to the Encyclopedia Britannica. These are out there for anyone to check and verify.
Where's your verifiable evidence supporting your side?
Surely anything so important that God himself would be offended by it must be backed up by something?
Dave
sweetscholar

you made a little cute snide remark acknowledging that I wrote "tons" but necessarily addressing the points. well again, I have to say that just because you or others may not LIKE the answers that does not mean that the questions you or others raised were not "addressed".
in fact, you actually did have a good question or two. like about do all things that humans "conjure" up have to be bad, and are all 'emotions' bad, even with sinners and Adamites, and whatever.
I had no problem with you asking that stuff. at that point it was still cordial between us (though I did notice even then a little snideness on your part, but not really a big deal)
the point though is THAT I ANSWERED YOUR POINTS AND QUESTIONS with Scripture and history and logic and whatever, though you didn't necessarily agree with the answers.
"heart is treacherous and desperate." and a whole bunch of other things. not agreeing with the answers is NOT the same as "not addressing it" per se.
you mentioned "judge no man" recently. even AlmostAtheist would agree that I ADDRESSED IT AND ANSWERED IT AND WAS EVEN RIGHT ABOUT IT !!!!!!!
when you or other characters came at me with weak "well pagans ate fruit too, and urinated, and took baths, and drank water" I ANSWERED AND ADDRESSED THAT NONSENSE. tell me, you brat, how I did not address it?? I said that servants of God also ate, drank, bathed, and urinated, but they never celebrated birthdays in the Bible. EVEN ALMOSTATHEIST AGREES WITH ME THAT I ADDRESSED THOSE PARTICULAR THINGS AND EVEN ADMITS THAT IN THOSE CASES I WAS RIGHT !!!!
so to you and others, who think that I've "dodged" (which is so retarded and insane, given all that I've addressed) that simply shows warped bias and dishonesty.
human nature.
even the Calvinist stuff. did I necessarly address EVERY SINGLE LINE by others. no. but I addresed the bulk. just because they didn't agree with answers (like to the Romans 9 references) does not mean I, duh, "dodged" or "didn't address it" overall.
I mean, like I said, Little Toe Ross or whatever your name happens to be. you actually disagree with AlmostAtheist on certain things. and he's actually more in your camp as far as BD celebrations. in other words, you're being totally irrational and unreasonable on things. it's like "if sweetscholar writes it, I'll summarily dismiss it as not to be agreed with." listen, Einstein, AlmostAtheist does not do that with me, for the most part. he agreed with me on the "pagans ate fruit" lame argument and the Colossians 2 "Jewish feasts, let no man judge" matter. he's cooler (a little too much stretching with eye paint, though he has a point) and more reasonable.
but it's like whatever. this is an ex-JW anti-JW apostate pagan site. so it's like DEFD said, what can you expect?
but LittleToes, try to be more honest about the matter. not with this "don't confuse me with the facts. my mind is already made up against most of what JWs say". and I can almost see Almost's eyes bulging right now, cuz he's thinking that that's somewhat done too, about the BD and eye paint thing.
if me or the WT or whatever found hard conclusive proof that "eye paint" originally definitively expressly invented ORIGINALLY for the sole purpose (notice my wording) originally to "ward off spirits" or whatever, then yeah, I would prohibit it, in that sense. but there's nothing to really indicate (besides kooky "evil eye" websites that like to make weird inferences) that "eye makeup" was ORIGINALLY AND ONLY INVENTED for anything other than beauty enhancement.
ciao
AlmostAtheist

>> you actually disagree with AlmostAtheist on certain things.
Yep, absolutely. And I love the guy. In fact, just about everybody on this site disagrees with me on some point or other. I couldn't be happier. If everyone agreed with me, what would I ever learn? What are the chances that I'm right about everything? 0%? -50%? :-)
When I say you haven't addressed the points, what I mean is that you haven't presented proof of what you say. For instance, you showed various scriptures that show that God doesn't like bad things, but you haven't shown proof that birthdays are bad.
Maybe they ARE bad. I don't have any information to decide one way or the other, based on this thread. You've shown no proof that birthday celebrations are of pagan origin. (Your statements on the subject are not proof, nor are 3rd hand quotes from unverifiable sources.) What proof I've found for your position was on the same lame websites that I posted about makeup. No encyclopedias, no authorities, nothing from any reputable source.
If you truly believe it, then please show me your basis for it.
Dave
LittleToe

sweetscholar:We've got off to a bad start, you and I. Wanna call a truce and start from the beginning?
My name is Ross - I've been a member of this site for over four years - I'm completely resistant to being put into a box and personally detest being judged by anyone other than Christ - pleased to meet you...
LittleToe

Ellderwho:"The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther?
I've been busy reading a pile of other stuff, recently, but I'll certainly pop it on the to-read list
sweetscholar

a very good read indeed. and a lot of truth. but Luther (and Calvin later) went coo coo for cocoa puffs on many of the points. Bondage of the Will is a theological invention and a very insiduous heresy. not known or taught in Scripture. just drawn recklessly from by certain weak inferences from Scripture. confusing "man's nature" with "man's will" too much.
here are the books that you should look at that pertain to the subject.
"Bondage Of The Will" by Martin Luther (the Bible corrector and slicer. he didn't like the books of James, Hebrews, and Revelation very much, so he'd rather they be cut out, like Juhadi's pen knife. and he unlawfully added the word "alone" to Romans "by faith", where "alone" is found in NO Greek New Testament in the book of Romans, in the history of manuscript evidence.
"Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace" (Paperback) by by Bruce A. Ware (Editor), Thomas R. Schreiner (Once titled "Grace of God, Bondage of the Will")
"Why I Am Not a Calvinist" by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell
"Why I Am Not a Calvinist" by Peter S. Ruckman (the KVJ Onlyist)
"Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism" by Robert E. Picirilli (an anti-Calvinist who presents the Scriptural view very well-balanced)
ellderwho

bondage of the flesh and nature, yes. "slaves to sin". but "when I WISH WISH WISH (WILL) TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT IS BAD IS IN (THE NATURE) OF ME". Paul "willed" but his "nature" got in the way. so no, not necessarily the same thing.

SS your arguement is with scripture.
"He that willeth" in Romans 9 has been explained, but apparently summarily and arrogantly and unreasonably dismissed by the Tulip-Sniffers. so there's just so much I can say and write about it.
Check your NWT
Rom 9:11
for when they had not yet been born nor had practiced anything good or vile, in order that the purpose of God respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not upon works, but upon the One who calls,
Rom 9:12
it was said to her: "The older will be the slave of the younger."
What if the older has a will that he feels should be considered, that he should not have to serve the younger even though it is decreed
Rom 9:13
Just as it is written: "I loved Jacob, but E'sau I hated."
Why is Esau forbidden to serve Jehovah? Where is Esaus' will?
Rom 9:14
What shall we say, then? Is there injustice with God? Never may that become so!
Rom 9:15
For he says to Moses: "I will have mercy upon whomever I do have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I do show compassion."
Rom 9:16
So, then, it depends, not upon the one wishing nor upon the one running, but upon God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17
For the Scripture says to Phar'aoh: "For this very cause I have let you remain, that in connection with you I may show my power, and that my name may be declared in all the earth."
Why does Pharoah have to sit back and let Jehovah run things? Oh thats right you said Pharoah acted that way first.
Rom 9:18
So, then, upon whom he wishes he has mercy, but whom he wishes he lets become obstinate.
Where is mankinds say in the above?
Rom 9:19 You will therefore say to me: "Why does he yet find fault? For who has withstood his express will?"
The Bible even says that SweetScholar will question Jehovahs will. You reffered to that scenerio as an unreasonable tyrant.
Rom 9:20 O man, who, then, really are you to be answering back to God? Shall the thing molded say to him that molded it, "Why did you make me this way?"
Same here. What way SweetScholar has a will.
Rom 9:21 What? Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for an honorable use, another for a dishonorable use?
Does not Jehovah have authority over SweetScholar?
Rom 9:22 If, now, God, although having the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, tolerated with much long-suffering vessels of wrath made fit for destruction,
But not you.
Rom 9:23 in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,
Whats beforehand SweetScholar?
the point though is THAT I ANSWERED YOUR POINTS AND QUESTIONS with Scripture and history and logic and whatever, though you didn't necessarily agree with the answers.
That might work out in service, not here. Ironically reading Romans alone by yourself is what caused the shake up at Bethel in the early 80s, proceed with caution.
ellderwho

Pharaoh was made that way AFTER he was showing hardened resistance to God and His people. not before

Really, show your scriptures.
This is good stuff here:
One question that Calvin and hyper-Calvinists could never really face and discuss and still can't is
how an unsaved man can be responsible for something he is unable to do and be held accountable for something he could not have done if he had tried.
An unsaved man gets exactly what scripture says he should, whats the problem?
God predistines CLASSES of individuals, not necessarily every single peron or every single person's acts.
So you believe in predestination when you need it. Wont you show us your teaching from scripture?
If you want mercy from the Almighty and compassion you are going to have to come HIS way, not your own way. that's fairly clear from the text, if a man could read it all carefully. in other words, you can't make up in your own mind how to be saved or right with God, but it's HIS way. it can't be like "ok, I am determined by my own act of will that God will have mercy on me." it can't be done that way. it is of God. But Calvin and hyper-Calvinists for some oddball reason believe that that verse denies the free will of man in receiving Christ, when that specific thing was not even under discussion those verses.
The above is classic. You start off " If you want mercy from the Almighty and compassion" why not show where in scripture, mankind wants anything to do with Jehovah?
Then you state "come his way." an a unregenrate man can do this? Show me.
in other words, you can't make up in your own mind how to be saved or right with God,
You started off your sentence saying I could, remember "If I want "
C'mon SS

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

Share this