by jwgirlfriend 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
Finally, Christians have a special meeting on the anniversary of Jesus? death. Of course, this is done out of obedience to a clear command found in God?s Word.?Luke 22:19, 20.
This is off topic - but -- If it's such a CLEAR command then why don't they do it the way Jesus CLEARLY commanded it??? TAke....eat....all of you....
It sounds like the article is saying - "celebrate wedding anniversays if you must-- but don't you dare have too much fun."
There is definitely still a birthday ban, but to clearly see it, one must read the passage backwards.
?Awake!? responds: Christians refrain from any celebrations or customs that continue to involve false religious beliefs or activities that violate Bible principles. For example, the Bible definitely puts birthdays celebrations in a bad light. (Genesis 40:2; Matthew 14: 6 - 10) However, if it is very obvious that a custom has no current false religious significance and involves no violation of Bible principles, each Christian must make a personal decision as to whether he will follow such a custom.
Working backwards: Birthday celebrations are an example of a celebration or custom that Christians should refrain from.
There is also cohesion between the Bible being mentioned in the sentence about birthdays (as indicating that birthdays are "bad"), and the prior sentence which mentions Bible principles as the rationale behind the "proper" Christian response to such celebrations.
The last sentence has nothing to do with birthdays. It is only meant to shore up their position on the pinata , which they feel falls into the "conscience" category. It is permitted for the very simple reason that the Bible fails to mention anything about the pinata (!).
As it is phrased, it is not clear whether the last sentence contrasts with the second or continues the same thought. "However " is contrastive, but as it is commonly used in English it could denote a condition that overrides the importance of the previously mentioned concern. Adding the word "other" would clearly make it contrastive (i.e. "other customs"). But they don't do that. There are other things that muddy up the interpretation. The initial question asks for their stand on birthdays and Christmas, and the response ends on the note of things being "up to conscience". To someone not reading carefully (or knowledgable of JW-speak), the flow of the response is suggestive of a lenient position, since one expects the final sentence to sum up the bottom line. Another factor is the fact that the third sentence refers only to "customs" while the second refers to "celebrations". Are they referring to the same thing, or something different? A third factor is the failure of the second sentence to use the word "violate" or "violation". The first sentence gives two conditions for banning a practice: a "continuation" of false religious belief in the practice and a "violation " of Bible principles. The second sentence conveys the idea that Bible principles are "violated" ("the Bible puts birthdays in a bad light" translates as "The Bible says birthdays are bad"), without actually using the word. Another tactic is the failure to explicitly spell out the consequence of such a violation, which would result in asserting an overt birthday ban. This obfuscates the otherwise very clear position they are making, of citing birthdays as an "example" of something Christians should "refrain from" (the use of the word "definitely" also functions by making birthdays a definite example of something to be refrained). Likewise, they fail to explicitly spell out the matter in the case of the pinata, which the third sentence is alluding to. This is the most important tactic of all, because by leaving the application of the third sentence open-ended, one could theoretically apply it to either birthdays or the presumed pinata. Since birthdays are mentioned explicitly and the pinata is not, one is misled into thinking that birthdays are a conscience matter. This is reinforced by the fact that the second sentence doesn't use the word "violate" or "violation", which would clearly rule out such an interpretation. But such a position is already ruled out a priori by the crucial word "example ". What are birthdays mentioned as an example of? An example of something to be permitted or something Christians should refrain from? What is the prior sentence talking about. Is it talking about things to be permitted or things to be refrained from? Indeed, the context shows that birthdays are mentioned as something to be refrained from.
I think if one makes the implicit explicit, their position is this:
Conditions (a) or (b), if met, lead to a ban on practice (x). Practice (x'), namely birthdays, "definitely" violates condition (b), thus it is implied but not stated that practice (x') is banned . If conditions (a) or (b) are not met, then the practice is not banned and one can make a "personal decision" on whether to practice it or not. It is implied but not stated (tho it was made explicit in the prior pinata article) that practice (x''). namely the pinata, does not violate either condition (a) or (b), thus one can make a "personal decision" about it.
I think this is a masterpiece of obfuscation.
They observed the 100th anniversity of the formation of the Watchtower Corporation! Had special talks and printed a brochure which is included on the latest WT CD. They go over the history and accomplishments of the WT over the last 100 years.
A Corporation is a legal entity, equivalent to an individual from a legal viewpoint!
So they observed the 100th BIRTHDAY of the WATCHTOWER CORPORATION!
What would be the difference if they observed the 100th birthday of an person?
NONE AT ALL!
All Attention is to be given to their ORGANISATION! none at all to individuals!
Another CULT attribute that they do not like to admit!
--VM44
About anniversaries.....
Frankly, there is no need for a Christian to celebrate either.
Such spoil-sports. Why not also say there is no need for eating ice cream, owning a TV, taking vacations, or having any kind of fun. I bet they'd love to ban anniversaries too if they had the chance.
As noted, it can be said that both are anniversaries because an "anniversary" is ?the annual recurrence of a date marking some event.? It could be an anniversary of any event?the day you had an automobile accident, saw an eclipse of the moon, went swimming with your family, and so on.
I've never been married, but in the first relationship I ever had, we had anniversaries for the first time we talked to each other, the first time we met, the first time we kissed, the first time we broke up, etc. It was great -- we had anniversaries all year round!
It is clear that Christians do not turn every "anniversary" into a special day or have a party to commemorate it.
Yeah, things like birth and marriage pale infinitely in significance compared to going swimming or seeing an eclipse. I mean, really!
One should consider the aspects of an event and decide what is fitting.
<husband speaking to wife> Well, honey, the day that I married you was the happiest day of my life. That surely is worthy of celebrating and not being banned. The day our beloved son was born, I was busy cleaning the Kingdom Hall. Not at all worth celebrating, now is it?</husband>
The Jews also treated as special the anniversary of the rededication of the temple. Though commemorating this historical event was not commanded in the Bible, John 10:22, 23 suggests that Jesus was not critical of its being done.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!! Does that mean we get to celebrate Channukah! Yippee!!!! Put on your yamakah, here comes Hannukah.... Boy oh boy, I can't wait to get my Channukah presents! Does that mean I get to light the menorah too?
Hmmm....remember what the Watchtower ruling is on the matter:
Christians refrain from any celebrations or customs that continue to involve false religious beliefs or activities that violate Bible principles..... However, if it is very obvious that a custom has no current false religious significance and involves no violation of Bible principles, each Christian must make a personal decision as to whether he will follow such a custom.
Channukah is not banned in the Bible.....the WT says so. Even Jesus celebrated it (John 10:22, 23). So it obviously does not involve "false religion" or a violation of Bible principles. Ergo, it's fair game. Heck, even Apostle Paul left it as a conscience matter: "From now onwards, never let anyone else decide what you should eat or drink, or whether you are to observe annual festivals, New Moons, or sabbaths" (Colossians 2:16). He went on to decry the very thing the Society is doing with all its stupid talmudic rules: "If you have really died with Christ to the principles of this world, why do you still let rules dictate to you, as though you were still living in the world? 'It is forbidden to pick up this, it is forbidden to taste that, it is forbidden to touch something else,' all these prohibitions are only concerned with things that perish by their very use -- an example of human doctrines and regulations!" (v. 21-22). Paul was against a sort of false asceticism that the Society seems to have adopted in forbidding all holidays and many naturally "fun" things.
Finally, Christians have a special meeting on the anniversary of Jesus? death.
The mystical communion of the Body of Christ reduced to a "special meeting". That sounds so .... corporate.
Certainly, the Bible does not put marriage in a bad light.
Wait a minute....the Society says birthdays are put in a bad light because two of the three birthdays mentioned in the Bible (forgetting about the birthdays mentioned in Job) involved someone wicked and "something bad happened on that day". It is an inference based on a mere two examples, and by neglecting the one positive example. So....does the Bible put marriage in a bad light? Are there any marriages mentioned in the Bible that involved wicked people or had "something bad" happen during the marriage? The Bible is littered with examples. Adam and Eve, David and Bathsheba, Ahab and Jezebel, Samson and Delilah, Hosea and Gomer, etc.
Jesus both attended a marriage celebration and contributed to the pleasure of the occasion.?John 2:1-11.
Jesus...contributing pleasure? I bet the few alkies there loved it.
It thus would not be strange that a couple might on their wedding anniversary take time to reflect on the joyfulness of that event and on their resolve to work for success as a couple. Whether they focus on this happy occasion in private, just as a couple, or they have a few relatives or close friends with them would be for them to decide. The occasion should not become a mere excuse for a large social gathering.
God forbid that! Why would one ever want to invite the whole family to celebrate...say...the 40th anniversary of great grandpa and grandma. Better to have it "in private" or having just "a few relatives" over. This is so moronic! The Watchtower wants to control every aspect of Witnesses' lives....even down to the size of wedding anniversary parties. From their point of view, a silly "excuse" is needed to rationalize having a "large social gathering". Making a wedding anniversary, of all things, the mere pretext of social gathering is <sarcasm> truly idiotic. Get some common sense, R&F! Come up with a better excuse, like, oh I don't know, how about, building a Kingdom Hall!</sarcasm>
So whether one takes note of a wedding anniversary or not is a personal matter.
Code for: We're not telling you not to do it, but if you really want to be "theocratic" and fully please God, it might be best not to do it.
The Bible directs us to commemorate the date of Jesus? death, not the anniversary of his or anyone else?s birth. Doing so accords with Ecclesiastes 7:1 and the fact that how a faithful person?s life turns out is more important than the day of his birth.
"Better a good name than costly oil, the day of death than the day of birth" (Ecclesiastes 7:1). Is this a command against celebrating birthdays? Or a philosophical musing on the pointlesses of having fun? You decide: "Better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting; for to this end all men come...Better sadness than laughter, a severe face confers some benefit. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, the heart of fools in the house of gaity....For laughter makes a fool of the wise man, and merriment corrupts the heart" (7:2-7). You hear that? No laughing, no merriment, better to be sad and mourning. If birthdays should be banned on this basis, so should watching comedies, telling jokes, or doing anything fun. Thus, wedding anniversaries -- which are designed to bring up good feelings of merriment -- should equally be banned, no? It would just not be consistent to ban birthdays on the basis of this scripture, and allow anniversaries and other fun things.
The Bible has no record that any faithful servant celebrated his birthday.
The thing that really bugs me about this argument is the assumption that the Bible is complete enough in its record of ancient Israelite custom that the absence of evidence can be taken as a positive sign something was not done by "faithful servants". There is no record in the entire Bible that any faithful servant celebrated wedding anniversaries either. Right? It just wasn't something that was discussed much, or part of Judean culture. This argument is logically very, very weak.
Moreover, the Bible does mention the celebration of Job's sons in Job 1:4: "And his sons used to take turns feasting in the house of each one on his day, and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them" (compare 3:8, where "cursing the day" refers to cursing "the day I was born" in 3:1, and Hosea 7:5 where "the day of our king" refers to a royal holiday with celebration, observing either the king's birthday or accession). Most Bible scholars regard this as an allusion to birthdays. It is true that in v. 5 that Job sacrificed for his sons in case they sinned. But it is not the fact that they were celebrating on a particular day that Job tried to atone for, but for any presumed drunkenness they might have indulged in.
It records birthday celebrations of pagans, linking these occasions with cruel acts.
Yes, it just mentions two celebrations, not a statistically valid sample to infer whether faithful Israelites or Jews refrained from celebrating birthdays. Imagine if the Bible had two examples of Israelites doing bad things on their wedding anniversaries. Would that make celebrating wedding anniversaries wrong? Indeed, the Apostle Paul mentions that Christians in Corinth were gluttonous and had a habit of getting drunk while observing the "Lord's Supper" (1 Corinthians 11:20-22, 27, 33-34). That's pretty bad. Does that mean it's wrong to observe the Lord's Supper? The reasoning is flawed because it assumes "guilt by association," that because negative things happen during an observance that the observance itself is bad. But in the case of Pharoah's birthday and Herod's birthday (Genesis 40:20-22; Matthew 14:6-10), it wasn't the birthday itself that was evil but the men and their actions. By the same token, it wasn't the Lord's Supper that was evil but the people who abused it to get drunk.
And that's the basis of the birthday ban. (Aside from the "pagan" customs associated with it) Too bad they don't follow the Apostle Paul's advice on the matter:
"One man considers one day more special than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God" (Romans 14:5-6).
Good review, Leolaia. Excellent! But it won't penetrate the hard noggins of the men in NYC.
The whole 14th chapter of Romans seems quite clear as to concience matters. Vs 1: "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over trivial things". Vs 2: "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables". Vs 5: "One person esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." Vs 12: "So then each of us shall give account of himself to God". Reading the entire chapter, it seems plain to me that it is saying don't nit-pic over trivial things like what foods should or shouldn't be eaten or what days to hold as special. Notice that Verse 2 says that it's the strong ones in faith who eat all things and aren't offended by it. Seems like the WT leaders, offended by birthday celebrations, are the ones showing weakness.
chappy
Thanks NeonMadman and everyone else. I actually saw that tiny bit of an article. I came across my boyfriend's mom's magazines over the summer and read it. I immediately joked around that he could celebrate some stuff with me, but he just chuckled and that was it. I didn't want to get into an argument.
It is also not true that the bible depicts the Pharoah birthday in a "negative light". The story has pharoah fullfilling Joseph's prophecy and restoring the cupbearer to favor as well as executing the disloyal baker.(Gen 40:1, 20-22) Unless Yahweh regarded executing sinners a crime the story is a positive one. IOW OT justice prevailed and Joseph's god given gifts to read omens were demonstrated. Similarly the Herod story does not depict the birthday celebration as sinful it was the conspiring of JTB's enemies that resulted in his death.
The prohibition agaist birthdays resulted from hasty research and desire to isolate the JWs from avergae society. It provided another claim to moral superiority.
My take is this new stance is a diagnostic. They wana see how independant JWs have become. If you are realtively free thinking you will celebrate someones birthday. The elders may ask them what to do. I assume thell be counting every letter and using it as a gauge of how inert they have become.
