AS -
Welcome back.
Good line of reasoning. Just from a purely scriptural standpoint, I could never find justification for the banning of birthdays. Of course, once one deconstructs the recognition of birthdays - then the next mindset coming from the Jw's will be the pagan nature of the customs associated with the celebration. Candles, cake, wishes, etc. This becomes enough to convince them to reject the celebration. They just label it Pagan, and that becomes enough for them. If not the recognition of the day, the origin of the style of celebration becomes the issue with them.
One could ask them if all things that 'pagans' did were evil, or should be avoided? Then bring to fore all the common practices that we have today that had origin with groups that were not God's biblically favored people [their idea of who constitutes Pagans]. Ask them who are 'pagans', or who were 'pagans'? They likely don't have any idea - though they accept the generally intolerant view of some earlier Christian groups that it includes all outsiders. Once they commit that that is their basic view, then one can ask specific questions as to the timing and origin of the term, and if all agree to it's meaning? Basically there are three accepted meanings of the Latin word 'paganus'. Those interpretations are diverse and meanings vary according to whom one is speaking;
- The slow thinking rural people who had not adopted the 'modern' Christian view that thrived in metropolitan areas, long before it's acceptance in the more isolated regions where the peasants held to the Greek or Roman state religion, or mystic religions.
- That 'pagani' were simply non-Christian civilians, whereas the 'miles Christi' were soldiers of Christ.
- Pagans were just outsiders.
While these definitions are obsured today, with no single accepted definition for all hearing and speaking the word 'pagan', none of them are particularly offensive except the first - the allusion to one being a 'hick' or 'backward'. Yet none of them convey derision for religious practices per se. Like other subjects, if one begins to discuss this intelligently, Jw's are left outside the discussion. They have used 'pagan' not as a definition of anything, but as a label, like 'demons', 'Satan', 'apostate', that bring up images of dreaded attachment to the ungodly dark side.
If one can get them to muse on the subject of 'pagan', one might get them to begin to realise that the concept is just a catch term intended to be pejorative and dispreciatory, but without definition.
Sorry to have strayed.
Jeff