Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist 173 Replies latest jw friends

  • blondie
    blondie

    Should JWs own pets?

    g89

    6/8 p. 18 Can You Really Care for a Pet? ***

    Does your life-style allow for the proper care of an animal? Are you absent from home for long periods of time?

    Not all adults consider the consequences of accepting another "member" into the family. They do not always foresee the inconveniences and responsibilities that a pet can bring. This may especially be true of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who lead such busy lives in their Christian ministry and are often away attending meetings and Christian conventions. Then the problem of finding someone to care for the pet arises. Certainly, it would not be appropriate to miss Christian activities because of an overly sentimental attachment to animals.—Hebrews 10:24, 25.

    Does he have the facilities for proper care and attention? And remember, animals eat and big animals eat a lot! That can make quite a dent in your pocketbook—yet another factor to take into account. Animals do get sick, and medical costs may take you by surprise.

    ***

    g72 7/8 p. 6 Getting a Balanced View of Pets ***

    Throughout the centuries since, false worship has often involved a wrong view of animal creation. Crocodiles, baboons and bulls have been kept in temples, there being bathed, perfumed and fed the finest of foods, while humans in the same area lived in wretched conditions with hunger. Mighty nations have taken a certain animal or bird as the proud symbol of their government and people, jealously venerating that animalistic symbol.

    Even though not deifying an animal as sacred, what if we should treat a pet animal as though it were virtually on a level with humans? What if we showed even greater interest and concern for it than we did for other humans, slighting their interests on behalf of the animal? What if we were willing to go to great lengths and expense to alleviate animal suffering in general but failed to ‘love our neighbor as ourselves’ and compassionately aid others in the way God’s Son did while on earth? (Mark 6:34) In any such case, would this not be putting the animal in a position where it does not belong?

    While perhaps rare, cases are reported of persons who let their pet animal sit at the meal table with them and eat from a plate with the human members of the household. Some persons make out wills bequeathing sums running into thousands of dollars for the care of some pet animal. Others will go to great expense to keep alive some aged and diseased animal, even risk endangering the health of others in the home by retaining the animal there.

    Yes, animals are wonderful—in their place. But they can never really substitute for humans. To avoid becoming off balance in our viewpoint or emotional attitude we should appreciate that it was the world of mankind that God so loved that he gave his only-begotten Son. (John 3:16) True, the majority of humans today are not reflecting God’s qualities and acting in His ‘image and likeness.’ They thereby cause much sadness, frustration, irritation and heartache. But not all are that way. We can find persons who will provide splendid companionship, persons who are admirable and lovable, who prove worthy of God’s love. If we are willing to make the effort to find such, we need never be lonely or commit the error of turning to animals to receive what only humans can give.

  • defd
    defd

    The make up thing I do not agree with. It is too over the top. The FDS does not say that make up is a sin does it? If they did I would not agree and If I were a woman I would still wear it in good conscience. Knowing jehovah does not view it as a sin.

    D.

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    Defd wrote (bolding mine):

    The make up thing I do not agree with. It is too over the top. The FDS does not say that make up is a sin does it? If they did I would not agree and If I were a woman I would still wear it in good conscience. Knowing jehovah does not view it as a sin.

    You meant the Bible right? Not the FDS.

    Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "The Bible does not say that make up is a sin does it?" After all it's God's word that Jehovah's Witnesses follow, not men.

  • Cordelia
    Cordelia

    dfed you didnt get the piont, the piont was that makeup is mentioned twice in the bible (just like birthdays) and both times it was on evil people who bad things happened to just like birthdays) and the point is exactly what you said tht the fds DONT say thats wrong so why should they say birthdays is wrong?

    tho on the other hand my dad came back with that one by saying jobs daughter wore makeup in fact oneof their names means 'madeup eyes' apparently! he also made me read the reasoning book on how early christians and jesus did not celebrate their birthdays (coz i was saying about wedding rings/veils being pagan) and his point was that today the early christians DID NOT celebrate birthdays but there is nothing in history to say that they didnt wear rings/veils

    i'd love to nswer him back, what is the answer?

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    Cordelia,

    Here is the WTS answer for the Job part:

    ***

    w91 6/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

    The name of Job’s daughter Keren-happuch likely meant "Horn of the Black (Eye) Paint," or a container for eye makeup.—Job 42:13-15.

    I didn't highlight it, but do you see the qualifying word "likely", that means not positive, as in we're accepting this because it makes make-up ok. If the FDS didn't like make-up they'd argue that this definition isn't set in stone and that the daughter could have been named that because she had especially beautiful eyes or very thich lashes. :)

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist


    Cordelia, the point made isn't a great one, but it's worth noting. If Job's daughter was named after a make-up container, then perhaps that would count as a "mentioned once in a positive light" claim for makeup. It still doesn't eliminate the fact that dogs are never mentioned in a positive light, yet dog ownership isn't condemned. And there's still no getting around the fact that eye makeup has pagan origins. Edited to add: A very cursory search on Google leads me to believe that "horn of eye paint" is a reasonably well-accepted meaning for her name. The only others suggest things like "child of beauty", and even in that case it might be a reference to the makeup as making her beautiful. Despite this name, though, there are still only two documented cases of women wearing "eye paint" in the Bible. I think this Job's daughter thing weakens the position, but doesn't collapse it.

    I should probably revise the birthday doc to highlight some other thing mentioned negatively in the Bible, particularly something with pagan origins. It took a few minutes of research to find the "eye paint" bit, it shouldn't be too hard to find something else. Maybe cremation?

    DefD, Cordelia's right. You didn't really get (or at least address) the point -- the REASON the FDS condemns birthdays should also be used to condemn other things. It's ok to point to the Bible and say "This is what I believe", but it isn't ok to point to the Watchtower and say the same thing. If you can't back your Christian faith up from the Bible, are you really willing to admit to yourself that your faith is based on men?

    Dave

  • sweetscholar
    sweetscholar

    not all "church fathers" of the second and third centuries, especially, held any idea of "con-substantial Godhead". but to other one, I have to say that "driving cars" and "wearing pants" is not a good comparison to pagan vain worldly birthday celebrations, that only sinners not saints engaged in. the candles and the cake only add "icing" (pardon the pun) to the point (being from Druid devil worship, "making a wish" to what? the background was a sacred demon god. religious overtones with candles and "making a wish.") that it's a no no for pure holy separated sanctified untainted Biblical Christians. pants were not invented yet. but pagan self-glorification creature worship days have been around since Cain. and as for Job, that's hardly solid proof. "his day" means necessarily "birthday"? that's conjecture at best. a desperate attempt at worst. if it was Job's "birthday" then why didn't just plainly say "birthday" like it plainly stated it in Pharaoh's case? in the Hebrew? or in Herod's case? why just say "his day"? "his day" is very day and could be referring to some commemoration as the patriarch of his big family and estate. but why not just say "birthday" if that's what it was? with Pharaoh the wording is not "his day", but clearly unambiguously "his birthday".

    also, wedding anniversaries, are in the vain of "wedding parties" which Jesus not only did not condemn but participated in and made more enjoyable (turning water into true wine). and you mean to tell me that in 3 1/2 years of Jesus' life and ministry (as well as before His ministry) there would be no incidental recording or mentioning of any of the 12 Apostles or Him celebrating any one of their birthdays, yet the Passover and Sabbath were always mentioned? if they in fact did celebrate them? also, "peeing" is not the same as birthday celebrations of worldly vanity and self-glorification. and there's nothing with also referring a little bit to the Reasoning book. there's some interesting stuff in there about this matter. that it wouldn't hurt to re-examine and look at. anyway, I hope this helps a little bit.

  • sweetscholar
    sweetscholar

    ...that BAD PEOPLE were doing it. in other words, if you see two occasions, one in each "Testament" of "birthday celebrations" being done, and the only two characters were NOT people like Moses, Elijah, David, Isaiah, Jesus, Peter, or Paul, but vile pagans, then the fact that "bad things happened on those days" is mayber 25% of the reason to be suspicious of it. the main reason is that it was bad PEOPLE doing it. and you'll say maybe "well bad people urinated too, so are we to abstain from that?" of course you know that's desperate, because urinating is not to be compared with creature worship and vain self-glorification ceremonies, and Druid candles and "making a wish" to a sacred demon. even if that's not what's specifically in mind. it all boils down to 'be ye holy as I am holy'. the "let no man judge you as to new moons" is also a week comparison and attempt because where do you see Paul writing "let no man judge you as to observing pagan rooted self-honoring birthday parties"? those "new moons and sabbaths" were specifically commanded by God at one time to the Hebrew Israelites. Christmas, Saturnalia, Easter, Ishtar, and vain birthday celebrations were never commanded or even recommended by the Almighty at any dispensation. and in Job it does not say "birthday". why not? why wasn't it clearly unambiguously spelled out what it was? like with Pharaoh's case? maybe because it wasn't actually "birthday"? and maybe some special commemoration? or just a dinner they were having in thanks? or is that you believe that was Job's birthday because you WANT to believe that? with no real proof for that assertion? is it because you celebrate your own birthday and the birthday of the sun god every winter solstice and it makes you uncomfortable to think that it might be wrong or unholy, so you look for desperate loopholes and attempts to justify yourself and your practice ("the heart is treacherous and desperate" Jeremiah) I guess God will have to judge that. but please think about it, Carla. and don't summarily dismiss what I'm saying because you don't like me. please think about it. thank you. and Jeremiah 10 condemns "way of the nations" as "vanity" and "hot air". "tree decoration" and customs etc. that's not the same as the Jewish feasts and celebrations that were one time commanded by God. that is following the "scripts". it may appear "flimsy" to you. but the principles are there. "written AFORE TIME, for OUR INSTRUCTION." Romans 15:4 f our main reasons that the witnesses of Jehovah don't celebrrate birthdays. (ONE) the two times that birthday celebrations are mentioned in the Sacred Record, it was THE BAD GUYS, in both cases. never any mention of any saint of God, servant of Jehovah, ever doing that kind of thing. (TWO) each of those two times, something bad happened. heads got chopped off. bad omen. bad smell. (do you need a slide rule to tell you that something off about that? God wants us to reason things out too. to test us. and see what's in our hearts. and see if we will really get rid of all the "dungy idols" in our lives. all types of "idolatry". Deuteronomy 8:16; Ezekiel 14:4,5) (THREE) also, it's a form of self-glorification and vanity. (JWs are into worshipping God, not self). (FOUR) and also, there are clear PRINCIPLES in the Bible about "do not follow the way of the nations" and "do not be worried about them" and "their customs are hot air". and "be ye separate" and "touch not the unclean thing" and be ye holy, for I am holy", and "do not mix Christ with idols" (ala the pagan Christmas sun-god tree worship that is dumped on Christ's suppposed "birthday") , and "do not mix the true with the false", and love God with your WHOLE HEART AND MIND, and to empty "self". general principles, that are not really all that compatible with the vain custom of "birthday celebrations" with all its pagan trappings, baggage, and background.

  • hideme
    hideme
    also, it's a form of self-glorification and vanity. (JWs are into worshipping God, not self).

    you need to carefulliy read Judges 11:40 and 1 samuel 18:6,7 - it's not wrong to honour people. Here are two examples, of people who served GOD, who where honoured and celebrated.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Derrick:

    The make up thing I do not agree with. It is too over the top.

    People have celebrated milestone events in life (like birthdays and wedding anniversaries) throughout time, regardless of what religion they purported to follow (or lack thereof). To castigate people for such a common and human practice is surely also a little "over the top"?

    It's not pagan, it's human, just like the giving of gifts is human (whether for a special occasion or none in particular).

    I quite like being human - don't you?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit