Proplog2 writes:
I don't believe Scully refuted my argument at all. My main
argument is that the premise for Christmas is false. It is not the
actual birthday of Jesus. Scully has not produced proof that
December 25 is the date of Jesus birth.
It's common knowledge that Jesus' date of birth is unknown. DUH. That's not at issue here. However, it has been customary for many centuries to celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25. Nobody has to believe he was born on THAT day in order to be grateful for his birth. Even the angels in heaven celebrated his birth, and they didn't even need a ransom. But, I'm sure you will acknowledge, that humans do need the ransom of Jesus. So what's the problem with celebrating the event, regardless of what day one arbitrarily chooses to do so??
After my main argument I made a sub-argument that Christmas is a grab-bag of non-christian (pagan) symbols and practices. This
should be no surprise because Jesus didn't set up the celebration
of his birth. Had he asked his followers to celebrate his birth he
probably would have controlled the essential symbols as he did with
the incorporation of unleavened bread and wine into the memorial of
the last supper covenant.
You overlook the fact that Jesus was a Jew. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that Jesus observed Jewish
Law by observing Jewish festivals, including Chanukah. Incidentally, there has been research that links the choice of December 25 with the Jewish celebration of Chanukah, in direct opposition to the Mithraic festival of the Birth of the Invincible Sun (Saturnalia), rather than using the date as a ploy to assimilate pagans into an apostate Christian church.
By the way, Jesus also taught his followers to "Love your neighbours as yourself." I don't see too much genuine love among JWs; because as soon as somebody misses a meeting, they start gossiping about that person and making claims that the person is spiritually weak. When you can follow that SECOND law of Christ, then you can start nitpicking the details of everything else.
The argument I believe you felt was so powerful was a kind of "You do it too" argument.Scully's response to my attack...
Thank you for admitting to that and showing us your heart's motivation.
was to accuse me of acting in a
similar way by using a pagan symbol - wedding ring. This is
actually a fallacious argument because it is NOT a rebuttal but
instead a way of avoiding rebuttal. The fact that I may engage in
a similar practice or thought process is irrelevant to whether such
a practice merits our acceptance.
Oh is that so??
What you're really saying is that if the WTS says it's ok for you to adopt a pagan symbol or practice, then you will; and if the WTS says you can't adopt a certain pagan symbol or practice, then you won't, and you will condemn others for not bowing down to the Sacred Words of the Watchtower.
proplog2? tell us what is the point of having a "Bible trained conscience" if you aren't allowed to use it?? Don't you realize that without 'exercise' it's going to get flabby??
There is no logical way that my practices can absolve you of your own guilt for the same fault, nor does the behavior of another
person or group constitute any logical justification for you to
behave in a similar manner.
Who decided that
YOU had the right or obligation to judge anyone's guilt or innocence on
any matter?? That's God's job, not yours, you pompous arrogant presumptuous blowhard.
But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;... So then each of us will render an account for himself to God. - Romans 14:10,12Scully picks this sub-argument because he has no rebuttal for the fact that Jesus wasn't born on December 25.
Scully doesn't personally have a problem with the fact that Jesus was not born on December 25. The date was chosen arbitrarily, and the historical background, which goes even further back than it's supposed link to Saturnalia, is the Jewish festival of Chanukah, which Jesus, being a Jew, did observe and celebrate. Would you like to play with my dreidle? Come on baby, light my
shammus!!
And it still nauseates me to think that some think that celebrating the Birth of Christ on a day he wasn't born is the whipped cream on the hot chocolate.
Then it should also nauseate you to think that the WTS picked October 1, 1975 as the date marking the completion of 6000 years of human existence. Would you like some dramamine?
You know you are also free to have sex with anyone who is willing. You are free to smoke. You are free to take drugs. You are free to get stupid drunk. Basically you have always been free. And you
are free to celebrate anything you want.
Why, thank you. So nice of you to give your permission, Your Majesty.
Another thing about wedding-rings...
This really yanked your chain, didn't it?
Scully is mis-using a general principle. This fallacy involves assuming that a rule has no exceptions.
The exception I take to this so called principle is that the WTS claims it has the authority to decide what are exceptions to the rule and what are not. Most of us here do not recognize the claim on authority that the WTS makes for itself.
Scully makes the unwarranted assumption that the
principle about pagan symbols ought to be applied in EVERY case no
matter what the circumstances. Scully is saying that under no
circumstances should the pagan origins of a practice or symbol be
considered.
No, I believe what I said was:
The MAIN question I have for you regarding this Watchtower article is this: The Question From Readers article specifically refers to JW females married to non-JW males. How is it that it's OK for these women to do all these things and not be referred to, as you so eloquently described, as "returning to vomit"?? Don't you think that's a tad hypocritical that a certain group of people within your ranks are allowed to do something while the rest of you are not?? What makes them SO special?? Does not Jehovah treat everyone equally?? If he doesn't, why doesn't he??The issue I am raising is that the WTS is permitting a segment of WOMEN among your ranks to use their conscience and decide for themselves what they will and will not do in terms of holiday observances, while the rest of you are supposed to watch from the sidelines and think it's OK for her but not for me. That's pretty hypocritical, to say that as long as she attaches no religious significance to the 'customs' and 'traditions' of her family it will be fine; whereas some of us who do not attach religious significance to those same customs and traditions of OUR OWN VOLITION, are "returning to vomit", as you called it.
JW's believe that the context of a practice is
important. Wedding rings are an accepted symbol of a persons
marriage status.
I have no quarrel with the use of wedding rings at all, or even of any of the pagan traditions that go along with it. But to say that it's OK because the WTS says "marriage is God's arrangement", does not make the customs or traditions any less pagan in origin. It merely means that they have been stamped with the WTS Seal of Approval. Is the WTS saying that Jesus' birth and subsequent ransom was not really "God's arrangement"??
The context of Christmas symbols is a celebration Jesus never instituted on a date that is clearly wrong and chosen because it was a popular date to worship idols. JW's also keep eggs and rabbits out of the memorial of Jesus death.
JWs also keep the fullness of Jesus' ransom out of the Memorial of his death. JWs also allow the WTS to insinuate themselves into the equation of Salvation. Jesus said
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. -John 14:6 but what does the Watchtower say??
(thank you to ozziepost for supplying the quotes)
"He [God] does not impart his holy spirit and an understanding and appreciation of his Word apart from his visible organisation." (The Watchtower, July 1, 1965, page 391)"Jehovah God caused the Bible to be written in such a way that one needs to come in touch with His human channel before one can fully and accurately understand it. True, we need the help of God's holy spirit, but its help also comes to us primarily by association with the channel Jehovah God sees fit to use." (The Watchtower, February 15, 1981, page 17)
"Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do." (The Watchtower, December 1, 1981, page 27)
"The Bible is an organisational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organisation, NOT TO INDIVIDUALS, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organisation in mind." (The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, page 587)
Is it any wonder then, that the WTS doesn't want JWs to observe Christmas (with or without any pagan attachments)?? Why, if JWs observed Christmas, they'd actually be honouring CHRIST JESUS instead of the WTS!!! God help anyone who would do such a
horrible thing!
Scully has avoided refuting my argument. Perry, you're a poor
cheerleader. Let Scully defend himself.
You're in the minority in thinking that, friend. Perry also did a fine job, you're the only one who thinks otherwise.
Oh, and PS: Scully is a girl.
Love, Scully
It is not persecution for an informed person to expose a certain religion as being false. - WT 11/15/63
