Posts by sweetscholar

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

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)

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

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

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

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.

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

sweetscholar

they don't wonder anything. the Bible says that Christ's true people would be "hated by all nations" and would be persecuted and lied about and dogged.

read your Bible a bit more carefully.

by the way, not all JWs would necessarily come off the way I've been with you. I'll concede a few things. my tone could have been calmer with you. granted. but you really were so out of line and inaccurate in your rude accusations. you think you were perfect in this whole thing??? really?? think again.

now for being overly gruff, my apologies. but again, I did NOT "dodge" really any thing that was asked of me. and it was unfair for you to say that. the other dude who brought up WT validity was bringing up irrelevant things and was being rude and weird about things.

most of my posts have been minus any "name-calling" or anything. did you really really read them all??

JWs don't wonder why sticking thorns in pagans sides would cause most of them not to like them.

People thought Noah and his family were arrogant and presumptous and annoying and "unlikable" and "cultic" too.

and it's not just a legend or allegory. people had their own religions and beliefs too back then. and Noah's Ark proved to be the only true religion on earth at that time in history. whether it consisted of 8 people or 800. I got more into that in other threads. that's a whole other topic in itself. (mentioned in PASSING here, Ellder.)

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

sweetscholar

ok. well Hyper-Calvinists I have no further time for. cuz now YOU'RE dodging. what about Paul's words "when I WISH OR WILL to do right, what is bad is present"??? obviously there was difference between the "will" and the "inner nature".

(one thing. you, Ellder, say that I brought this up?? I only mentioned it in PASSING. real briefly. I did not "bring this up" in the way you've been wanting to go on in depth about it. in that past posting, I hardly said a word, and it was just a brief passing remark. I did NOT dwell on Calvin in that particular posting. and you know that. it was simply a little remark. that I mentioned because Little Toes had asked about human nature and sin and emotionalism, tying in with what humans "conjure up". I did NOT bring up Calvinism as a topic in and of itself, the way you're doing. so don't recklessly mix the two types of things. it was just a very small SIDE point in my posting way before, not the whole posting itself.)

and 'vessels of wrath' and Calvin's shallow reading of Romans 9. Pharaoh was made that way AFTER he was showing hardened resistance to God and His people. not before Genesis 1:1 in some philosophical "eternal decree".

but if you want to discuss this elsewhere, start another thread. by the way, you're disagreeing with most Methodists and even many Baptists, who reject hyper-Calvinism and "eternal decrees" and "irresistible grace" and "unconditional election". that's a non-Scriptural heresy taught by Calvin. based on his misunderstandings of Ephesians 1:4 etc.

one point before I go. we may grant that a man is "dead in trespasses and sins" and dead spiritually. and needs to be "regenerated". But to say that this is true that therefore man has no free will is non-Scriptural blasphemy contrary to the Word of God, no matter WHO professes to believe it.

the teaching that "depravity" extends to all of the WILL, and therefore is "total" is what is called a Bible-rejecting un-Scriptural Satanic heresy. ther term "freewill" is a Bible term. the expression "unconditional election" and "irresistible grace" and "sovereign grace" are nowhere to be found in the Word of God. nor their precise notions. the word "freewill" is found in Ezra 7:13. Ezra 7:16. we find offerings "willingly offered" too. by people in the "Old Testament" who were not even "born again" or "chosen in Christ". and they were all "dead in trespasses and sins". yet they were still responsible for pleasing God and acting of their own free will, and they had a free will. the doctrine of "total depravity" in the Calvinistic "includes the will" sense is not to be countenanced by the serious student of the Word of God.

John 3:36 says "the wrath of God abideth upon" the one who has not believed on the Son of God. Meaning that God's wrath is not there ONCE a person truly believes and obeys the Son of God. so if a person is "pre-elected before Genesis 1:1" then why was God's wrath "residing" on him before that? that's not a way to treat the "elect." Do you think that the Lord would pour out His wrath on an unsaved man when the unsaved man could do nothing about his condition?

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. Calvin's "god" was not playing with a full deck. his theological docrinal "god".

Calvin confused "foreknowledge" with a hyper-predistination. God predistines CLASSES of individuals, not necessarily every single peron or every single person's acts. that would make God the biggest rapist in the universe. cuz He then created humans to rape and pillage and murder and steal. as "eternal decrees".

the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9). Did Peter or the Holy Spirit lie?

Now to Pharaoh and "vessels of destruction".

Romans 9:17,18. to show my power in the earth. did you ever read Exodus to see what that was actually about and how it applied and at what point??? John Calvin didn't. He just took for granted that God hardened the nonelect and saved the elect and that was the end of it. rather stupid way to do exegesis. God had foreknowledge that Egypt would not let the Israelites go. Exodus 3. read it. election is based on FOREKNOWLEDGE. not some arbitrary thing on God's part.

What is the context of Romans 9:21?? Hath not the potter power over the clay? there is no "clay" before Genesis 1:1. what is the context? THE VESSEL IS ALREADY THERE. God saw that Pharaoh ALREADY hardened his heart, and God allowed it, and thereby continued in that sense "hardening it" for a purpose.

22: Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. what fitted them for destruction??? well the "wrath" of God abides on those who ultimately don't believe in Christ. it's based on a person's own selfish will and choices. not some eternal "decree of reprobation."

I am not a Calvinist. which is the equivalent of saying that I'm not ready for the looney bin.

In Calvin's system, the ones who are elected to damnation couldn't be saved and couldn't believe even if they wanted to. and not one drop of Christ's blood was shed for that person. according to Calvin. no "straw dummy" is being built. that's what he taught. I have his books.

Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth..." willeth what?? Calvin never found out what the what was. "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy...I will have compassion...." but that's not referring to an unsaved sinner receiving Christ. and by free will. as I said, "freewill" is a Bible term and idea. (Ezra 7:13; 7:15; 7:16; Exodus 35:21; 35:5; and 35:29)

and in the "Old Testament" none of them was born again or "in Christ" and yet they still could choose right or wrong, in that dispensation.

Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth...." THAT WILLETH WHAT?? a man cannot by act of will make God have mercy on him or make God have compassion on him. that's what that is specifically saying. that's not saying "well man has no free will in anything." 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.

someone might say "Well at Calvary the Lord has mercy on a man and a man receives compassion, at Calvary." Sure, well that's the point isn't it. The point is that, if you want God to have mercy and compassion upon you, you can't just will His mercy upon you, on a whim; you have to obey God's will. And the Scriptures say that God has determined that He will have mercy and compassion on no man but a man who ultimately receives His and Messiah, as his Saviour and King.

anyway, I wrote enough on this topic for now. given that this is not even the right thread for that. but I only mentioned "JWs are not Calvinists" in an earlier post, IN PASSING. but Ellder and Deputy. I am not angry with you. I jusgt disagree with you and your hyper-Calvinism. and with your mis-application of Scripture, and mis-contextualization of things.

bye

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

sweetscholar

...any provable "dodge". all she ranted about was how her pagan church and pagan platonic "trinity" and pagan Christmas are on her side.

nothing on how actually I "dodged" anything, and nothing on how "circular" my things were.

just "I can be mean, too" silliness and hypocrisy.

I guess I struck a nerve, though she lamely denies it. cuz if I didn't, why her rant and posting and "right back at ya" trinity gibberish? LOL

blow it out your nose, you little brat. you have nothing informative or scholastic or reasonable to offer. you pointed out NOTHING. just whined like a child about my supposed "tones" and "name calling", and ignored the actual real points made, that even AlmostAtheist acknowledged in many ways. so enough of you, Bucka.

go play in the traffic, little kiddie. apostate protestant worldly corrupt little twit. (Read Stephen's words to reptilian hypocrites. Acts 7,8)

you dissed me out of nowhere. and accused me of junk that aint true. I asked you to point it out specifically yet you don't. and still don't.

I told you not to write me anymore. didn't I? yet you did anyway. I told you not to send me anything, unless it was about birthday parties that you love to observe like a disciple of Herod Antipas would, or to point out real "dodges" on my part, or real provable pointable "circular arguments." well, Beeky, you failed to do that. instead you came at me with "I can be mean too" crap, and "right back at ya" silliness. I at least told you how you were copying Satan, with your false asinine accusations.

but all you can do is "right back at ya". yet you call me childish. I'm not perfect, I know that. and pardon me for my over-stepping. so what. that's not all I've done. you overlook that. yet you insult me with accusations and say lame rude crap to me. with nothing to back up what you're saying. you called ME names first, you inconsistent nut

I aint perfect. whatever. you protestant pagan. but neither are you.

by the way "Reverend is HIS Name" (Psalm 111:9, KJV) not some silly pagan protestant creep clergyman so-called "pastor" blind leading the blind. your "prayers" won't go beyond the ceiling, sorry to say. Stephen the same types of things to willfully blind hypocrites and liars too. read your Bible, why don't you. you should know better, but you don't.

again, enough of this. and Ellder. THIS CALVIN STUFF IS OFF THE BIRTHDAY TOPIC. I addressed it. you don't agree that corruption and "depravity" does not necessarily have to extend to the "will" all the time per se. that's your choice. but it's answered. Paul "willed" things that his corrupt sinful nature didn't always make easy for him to do. "when I WISH to do right" etc.

bye

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

sweetscholar

not all in Protestantism or Christendom are hyper-Calvinists.

what's not to understand? a man's "will" is not the same necessarily as his sinful "nature."

I guess you subscribe to Calvinism, I don't know

but yes, I said "some truth" to what he said.

Paul said "when I WISH (will, the "will") to do right, what is bad is present with me." meaning the inner nature is sinful and corrupt and Adamic. no kidding.

but to say that that extends to the entire "will" of a man is a bit of a stretch, and not all that Biblical, since God commands people to obey and believe and etc, and so forth. "free will" is a Bible term. see Ezra and Exodus. and even Matthew 23. and Romans.

so no. a man's "will" can be different than his nature. how many times do you want to do something, but your "weak flesh" gets in the way? what's hard to understand about that?

and did a girl named Becka say something? I only red like 2 words of her last posting. and saw that it was rude crap, and bypassed it.

but no, JWs are not hyper-Calvinists, nor should they be. the Watchtower aint infallible, but bases its contents on God's Word. JWs are not hyper-predestinationists. or "irresistible grace" bunk and philosophy. people are not forced against their will be some eternal divine decree to believe and repent.

anyway, take care. I'm not dodging you as you can see, even if you don't agree with the answers necessarily. bye.

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

sweetscholar

but I was not "dodging" you as Becka dopishly asserted. by the way, the one who was laughing was Jeannie, not Becka. that was my mistake, cuz their posts were close together on the other page.

anyway, I thought I already said just how Calvin had "some truth". in that man has a sin nature and depraved in many ways. but he went to far thinking that not just man's NATURE was in "bondage" but also man's "WILL" which it really is not. man's will can be different than his nature. like Paul said 'when I WISH to do what is right (the will), what is bad is present IN me (the sinful Adamic nature)." you can will something, but your weak sinful nature gets in the way. Christ said "the spirit, indeed, is willing (referring to man's will and spirit and desire), but the FLESH (the sinful human nature) is weak." weak for righteousness, but strong for sin. Cavlin said that even man's will was totally depraved no matter what. and believed that God over-ran man's will to save him, by a theological invention called "irresistible grace". no. man's nature is depraved and sinful, but not NECESSARILY his 'will' per se. I can want to do something, but my nature may get in the way. they're not necessarily the same.

hence why I said that Calvin had SOME truth to what he said.

you see. Becka. I did not "dodge" his question. he might not necessarily agree with my position or my answer, but that does NOT mean that I "dodged" his question. get a grip. ok. and read and re-read the other postings by me and others. there was no real "dodging" or even "circularity" in what I said. that does not mean that my every word was perfect necessarily either. but not what you accused me of. by the way, did you know that Satan is called the great "accuser" in Scripture?? (Job 1,2,3; Revelation 12) with no sound backing or warrant. so guess who your father is. tootles. (I hope Jeannie laughs at this one.)

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

sweetscholar

but I must take issue. you're so wrong on what you said it's like not funny. no, not everyone here is a mature adult. that's silly. Little Toes is definitely not. Almost is though. he's ok

and I ask you, how have I "dodged" anything?? what specifically was so "circular" about anything I said? no. you're just asserting that I dodged.

I addressed EVERYTHING that AlmostAtheist has asked me and pointed out to me. if I have not. if I truly truly "dodged" then point out specifically in all my postings on this thread that that's so. that should be interesting.

you rudely and schmuckishly dismiss everything I wrote as 'dodging' and 'circular' without pointing out how that is so. YOU JUST MERELY ASSERTED THAT I DID THAT.

when Little Toe asked me about human emotions and if they're all naturally bad, I answered and addressed it. that does not mean that he necessarily liked the answer I gave. but that does not mean the same as "dodging."

all the things about eye paint and Herod and "pagans ate fruit too" I answered. how "eating fruit" is NOT the same as birthday celebrations, given that servants of God ate fruit in the Bible but never celebrated birthdays. how was that "dodging everything"??? be careful with your accusations. cuz you're guilty of what you're accusing me of. which I never did. and anyway, don't be so thin-skinned. Little Toes had that coming. he's NOT a mature adult. he's a sarcastic arrogant fool.

when "let no man judge" was brought up, I did NOT "dodge" it, but rather addressed it as "Jewish feasts that God commanded, not pagan feasts". was that a "dodge" too? because you don't like it? AlmostAtheist did not think I was "dodging" it but he admits I basically addressed these things. watch your own words and reckless accusations.

I answered all the points thrown at me. even AlmostAtheist admitted that a lot of what I said was Biblically true. he and I are stuck on the eye paint disagreement, but not really on much anything else, concerning this topic.

and where specifically was there any real "circularity" in any of what I said??? I never said here "the Watchtower condmens birthday celebrations and the Watchtower is always right." when did you read that from any of my posts??? or anything like that? the premise of the argument which Almost brought up is IF the Bible is true. that's the premise. don't accuse me of "circularity" without pointing out, chapter and verse, in black and white, just HOW I was doing that. cuz then you're just full of lamebrain biased accusations and hot air.

so please, spare me Becka. and another thing. if you are just gonna whine about things I do that are not even true, don't say anything to me again. I don't have time for an intellectually dishonest and biased over-sensitive thin-skinned apostate like you. most of my postings on this thread have NOT been "name-calling" but just stated things, cordial and civil. I only went off on Little Man and Jeffy for their blatant retarded hypocrisy and silliness. and yours too.

again, if you can't point out (and I know you won't) where I was actually genuinely "dodging" then kindly shut up. you're taking this "seriously"?? well if you think everyone on here is a "mature adult" then you're delirious. not really serious.

and I know you won't point out anything specifically I "dodged" or just how I "dodged" cuz there really isn't anything. you'll just dodge yourself, and claim that you won't have time to point out anything to me, blah blah. convenient dodge on your part.

if you have a point to make about birthday celebrations though, you'll see that I WON'T "dodge" the point, but will try to address it. but all you've done with me is whine about my "tone" and accuse me of things I really didn't do. which is off the thread topic anyway.

I doubt I'll hear anything substantive from you on this topic. or any real evidence that I "dodged" anything. if your next posting to me is retarded and unreasonable like your last one, then you will be ignored by me. good day. (again, point out a real "dodge" from me, and maybe we'll talk.)

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

sweetscholar

like that britannica website whatever it was, didn't even say "eye paint" in that page I saw. just "evil eye" hexes and whatever. hence "kooky" for you to cite them. and even if some made a connection to "eye paint" per se. adoption is like whatever.

what I will say is I thought it was already understood that God does not condemn everything that non-believers or pagans invented in history. wedding rings, cars, computers, eye paint, whatever.

but to dogmatically say that eye paint was invented originally (check this out) FOR THE SOLE ORIGINAL PURPOSE originally for warding off spirits has no backing and solid evidence. even (and get this) if it was used later on with that in mind. was it originally invented for that express purpose? nay, the evidence is lacking for that.

it was invented for simple facial enhancement and coloring and make up. Jezebel did not apply it on her eyes to ward off spirits. you admitted that

but Herod celebrated his birthday FOR GOOD LUCK AND FORTUNE AND VANITY. now, do you see the differences??

don't tell me that Herod did not believe in the Grecian concepts of birthday boy and fortune and hocus pocus. he was an Edomite schmuck and flunky of Rome. the Greek practice PRE-CEDED Herod.

now to wearing crosses. I'm surprised at you. cuz that goes into idolatry, not just adornment issues. if there was no background of "Tammuz" or the Tau god then probably not.

also a side point, Christ maybe have been killed and nailed on a cross-shaped Torture Stake. maybe a one-piece stake. "stavros" was a broad term denoting stakes of varying shapes and styles. we know the Romans used both one piece and double beamed stakes. that's a minor point. the key thing is it had to be a wooden post to begin with. for the curse to be lifted off the Jews (Deuteronomy 21:23; Galatians 3:13)

another topic of course.

you're wrong though. people who celebrated birthdays would care about it not getting out too much that BD celebrations were a pagan anti-Biblical non-Christian custom, with all its trappings. most people who put the reference works together profess some form of Christianity, a lot of times. not always, but enough. how would it look if they admitted and publicized that what they're doing every year with themselves and with others is questionable or pagan or impure or unholy or un-Biblical or un-Christian???? yet the facts and truth of the custom has come out anyway, from a number of sources, and archeological and historical discoveries. making a wish to a Greek or Druid god or demon is not compatible with separated pure Christian behavior in the Bible. even if that's not necessarily the way people who do it now view it. it's not an alibi for the ignorance, the willfull ignorance, to continue.

good day.