Adulterating Pure Worship

[Saint Frankenstein]

You act like one

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Brent Mcnealy]

What is that supposed to mean?

It meant you reverted down to name calling over doctinal differences

 

[Brent Mcnealy]

It meant you reverted down to name calling over doctinal differences
I am not a Christian anymore either but I can appreciate the freedom of a man to choose to abstain from blood if he desires to. Isnt that the freedoms you so preech?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It meant you reverted down to name calling over doctinal differences

That's not what happened.

 

[Brent Mcnealy]

That's not what happened.

What I read in the OP was him describing why he believes that Christmas went pagan and how it has left true sound doctrine. He listed the Bible quotes he thought were applicable to the subject and offered it up to debate. He called no one an idiot or fool or any other name that I saw. He degraded no one in particular. He listed verses that he thought applied to the thread he wrote. I thought he had the freedom of humanity to do that much. He outright directly assaulted no one specific in particular which is comendable yet offered up a verse where he though it might show that to continue with a pagan ideal in a religous setting might be perceived as spiritual blasphemy.
Who did he specifically directly assault? This is an open forum yet he retained decorum. He directly called no one in particular out yet offered up his view. With explination.
I myself am no longer a Christian either. But I can respect the freedoms granted to a human being who is not outright trying to demean others or lowering himself to calling them names. I saw nothing wrong with the post
Just because we have freedoms doesn't mean we need to behave ourselves uncomely and rashly and not manage them as true humanity ought.
And I rather respect the "refrain from blood" issue as well. Does this individual not have the freedom to believe that his blood is sacred? Whether we believe it or not?
This is the true freedom of humanity.

 

[danieldemol]

Does this individual not have the freedom to believe that his blood is sacred? Whether we believe it or not?

Strawman.
Who said JWs shouldn't have the freedom to believe their blood is sacred in this thread?

 

[Marcion]

Can one really sit down at the communion table to eat and be at peace with Jehovah God, and at the same time use practices and traditions dedicated to demons?

I take it that your ideal is likely to go back to the practices of very early Christianity before any pagan influence spoilt the true traditions?

The problem that I have with that is that there is no reliable record of how early Christians worshipped or even how or what they believed. The history of Christianity given in the New Testament is not the real history and very old documents of early Christians of different types of followers have been lost forgood.

In fact many theologians believe that thinking about Jesus in terms of a Son of God who raised himself from death or was raised by God from death is a pagan idea, a Greek influence on a section of the early followers.
Other theologians believe that the original followers made no connection at all between Jesus and the writings in the Jewish scriptures nor did they expect his return.

So objecting to later pagan influences seems rather insignificant if you compare them to the earliest developments in the formation of Christianity.

 

[Brent Mcnealy]

Strawman.
Who said JWs shouldn't have the freedom to believe their blood is sacred in this thread?

I never said someone said that in this "specific thread"

I was speaking at the time to someone on this thread who elsewhere on this forum stated his beliefs in human freedom.
So i used freedoms as an example as how to not be a hypocrite.
. You really ought to read before posting. I never said someone had said it "in this thread". You are grasping at straws that do not exist.
I will no longer reply to you on this thread simply because you try to muddy waters with inconsistent off subject accusations that are useless other than to change the subject. Its a pitiful ploy
And I myself dislike repeating myself to those who dont know how to read thoroughly and comment on what was actually being said
Please keep up.
Now say what you will. Even if its not true. but i would only repeat what I said. If I replied at all which I wont to you on this thread
Shouldn't someone have the right to believe that their blood and that of others is sacred. Shouldnt one have the right to believe that Christmas has been infiltrated by pagan beliefs along the way.
I say yes they should have those freedoms if we are to expect ours.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What I read in the OP was him describing why he believes that Christmas went pagan and how it has left true sound doctrine. He listed the Bible quotes he thought were applicable to the subject and offered it up to debate. He called no one an idiot or fool or any other name that I saw. He degraded no one in particular. He listed verses that he thought applied to the thread he wrote. I thought he had the freedom of humanity to do that much. He outright directly assaulted no one specific in particular which is comendable yet offered up a verse where he though it might show that to continue with a pagan ideal in a religous setting might be perceived as spiritual blasphemy.
Who did he specifically directly assault? This is an open forum yet he retained decorum. He directly called no one in particular out yet offered up his view. With explination.
I myself am no longer a Christian either. But I can respect the freedoms granted to a human being who is not outright trying to demean others or lowering himself to calling them names. I saw nothing wrong with the post
Just because we have freedoms doesn't mean we need to behave ourselves uncomely and rashly and not manage them as true humanity ought.
And I rather respect the "refrain from blood" issue as well. Does this individual not have the freedom to believe that his blood is sacred? Whether we believe it or not?
This is the true freedom of humanity.

Whatever, dude. You're in la-la land. Have a nice time.

 

[danieldemol]

I never said someone said that in this "specific thread"

I was speaking at the time to someone on this thread who elsewhere on this forum stated his beliefs in human freedom.
So i used freedoms as an example as how to not be a hypocrite.
. You really ought to read before posting. I never said someone had said it "in this thread". You are grasping at straws that do not exist.
I will no longer reply to you on this thread simply because you try to muddy waters with inconsistent off subject accusations that are useless other than to change the subject. Its a pitiful ploy
And I myself dislike repeating myself to those who dont know how to read thoroughly and comment on what was actually being said
Please keep up.
Now say what you will. Even if its not true. but i would only repeat what I said. If I replied at all which I wont to you on this thread
Shouldn't someone have the right to believe that their blood and that of others is sacred. Shouldnt one have the right to believe that Christmas has been infiltrated by pagan beliefs along the way.
I say yes they should have those freedoms if we are to expect ours.

If you are replying to a comment made in another thread things can get confusing, but I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt so long as you can link to the requested statement in another thread.

 

[Brent Mcnealy]

I was talking to someone else on a thread about how a person thought Christmas had been diluted through time with pagen ideals.
I was replying to someone else about how I believed they deserved the freedom to believe this and how If we wanted our own freedom of beliefs we ought to give others the same.. It was pretty clear cut
I added something of my own to the thread in the discussion while talking to someone else.
I thought this was a discussion forum on religion and it was very clear. I did not need to link to anything.
And personally I do not even need you own benefit of the doubt. You have added nothing to this conversatiin in you comment.
If a person decides their blood and the blood of others is a sacred thing. Or as in the post that Christmas is a more spiritual celebration and that paganism is detremental to their soul. They should have the freedom to believe such things.Especially if some of us as human beings demand our own freedoms like I said clear cut. Talking to someone else on the thread.
I will not backtrack on a not even needed link. ISorry you adhere to the confused group. And I have better things to do than ask for someones benefit who didnt even add to the conversation with their comment.
Add to the original thread next time in your most recent comment and I might give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I was talking to someone else on a thread about how a person thought Christmas had been diluted through time with pagen ideals.
I was replying to someone else about how I believed they deserved the freedom to believe this and how If we wanted our own freedom of beliefs we ought to give others the same.. It was pretty clear cut
I added something of my own to the thread in the discussion while talking to someone else.
I thought this was a discussion forum on religion and it was very clear. I did not need to link to anything.
And personally I do not even need you own benefit of the doubt. You have added nothing to this conversatiin in you comment.
If a person decides their blood and the blood of others is a sacred thing. Or as in the post that Christmas is a more spiritual celebration and that paganism is detremental to their soul. They should have the freedom to believe such things.Especially if some of us as human beings demand our own freedoms like I said clear cut. Talking to someone else on the thread.
I will not backtrack on a not even needed link. ISorry you adhere to the confused group. And I have better things to do than ask for someones benefit who didnt even add to the conversation with their comment.
Add to the original thread next time in your most recent comment and I might give you the benefit of the doubt.

People can believe anything they want. There is no requirement that those beliefs be respected.

If beliefs are used to justify violence, not only should they be DISRESPECTED, but they should be punished.

 

[Eyes to See]

The problem that I have with that is that there is no reliable record of how early Christians worshipped or even how or what they believed. The history of Christianity given in the New Testament is not the real history and very old documents of early Christians of different types of followers have been lost forgood.

The record given in the Christian Greek Scriptures gives us a good idea of how the first century Christian congregation operated and functioned. The book of Acts is filled with accounts that helps us to perceive this.

In fact there is a very through book that explains in good detail how the first century Christian congregation operated going through the book of Acts. I recommend it:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bearing-thorough-witness/

 

[Muffled]

There have been a number of threads recently on Christmas and its pagan origins. There is plenty of information in secular history, in any Encyclopedia, in the threads on this website even, about the unbiblical practices and pagan traditions that became known as Christmas.

Most Christians from the churches of Christendom these days are not ignorant of the pagan roots of Christmas, but they excuse them away. "It's the thought that counts." "It's a family tradition." "I don't think God cares about the pagan origins," and we go on and on with their excuses to why it is okay to celebrate a pagan holiday dressed as something holy to God.

So reasoning from the scriptures, getting the mind of God on things, what does he really think about mixing pagan rites, traditions, and worship with pure worship?

I was studying some of the requirements of offering a sacrifice pleasing to God under the Mosaic law a couple weeks ago, and reasoning on Jehovah's view of holiness might give us an idea of how he views mixing false religion with pure worship.

For example, in Leviticus 7:11, 12 a person whose heart moved him could offer a communion sacrifice to God.

This sacrifice was not a sacrifice for sins or guilt, but rather of thanksgiving. It meant a person had a good conscious and wanted to offer, voluntarily, a sacrifice of thanksgiving to Jehovah God. The one offering the communion sacrifice ate of it along with his family, 'with' Jehovah. Signifying the peaceful relation they had with him.

But were just any sacrifices pleasing to Jehovah? No! Notice what Jehovah said about anyone offering a communion sacrifice that was unclean:

"But any person who is unclean and eats the flesh of the communion sacrifice, which is for Jehovah, that person must be cut off from his people."-Leviticus 7:20.

A person could not offer a communion sacrifice to Jehovah if they were unclean for any reason. First, they had to give a sin or guilt offering to sanctify themselves before Jehovah, and then they were allowed to eat of the communion meal with Jehovah. If they were to offer the communion sacrifice in an unclean state they were to be put to death.

So while no one is under the law today, that gives us a glimpse of Jehovah's view of being unclean and trying to be at peace with Jehovah. One first must cleanse themselves of all uncleanliness, then they may have a good relation with Jehovah.

So what of the pagan practices that Christendom has adopted. Does God view them as clean and acceptable?

Scripture says, concerning the pagan practices of the nations:

"No; but I say that what the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers with the demons. You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of “the table of Jehovah” and the table of demons."-1 Corinthians 10:20, 21.

The rituals and traditions of the pagans that are at the roots of the traditions in Christmas are really things sacrificed to demons. And God says you cannot be partaking of the table of Jehovah and at the same time the table of the demons.

Can one really sit down at the communion table to eat and be at peace with Jehovah God, and at the same time use practices and traditions dedicated to demons?

I believe I can eat meat offered to idols just as Paul said. The reason is simple my conscience is clear. Jesus is in my heart and no demon can enter.

 

[Quintessence]

Isn't it fascinating how the crapping on Paganisms persists even though Christians have enjoyed incredible cultural hegemony and privilege over the last couple hundred years? Seriously, now. You won that war. The fact that people can't even be bothered to capitalize Paganism is testimony enough to that.

 

[Muffled]

Another nonsensical thread that posits "I'm right and all others are into paganism!".

"Physician, heal thyself!" instead of pointing a finger at everyone else, whereas three point right back at you.

I believe I wouldn't point a finger at him but I might make fun of him.

 

[Muffled]

Isn't it fascinating how the crapping on Paganisms persists even though Christians have enjoyed incredible cultural hegemony and privilege over the last couple hundred years? Seriously, now. You won that war. The fact that people can't even be bothered to capitalize Paganism is testimony enough to that.

I just wonder how a person could equate Pagans with demons. I haven't seen any evidence of a connection.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Isn't it fascinating how the crapping on Paganisms persists even though Christians have enjoyed incredible cultural hegemony and privilege over the last couple hundred years? Seriously, now. You won that war. The fact that people can't even be bothered to capitalize Paganism is testimony enough to that.

I'd say they won the battle, but not the war. Christianity's dying in the West. It's in terminal decline. Meanwhile, Heathenry just keeps growing and growing.

 

[Eyes to See]

I believe I can eat meat offered to idols just as Paul said. The reason is simple my conscience is clear. Jesus is in my heart and no demon can enter.

Without a doubt. For all food is sanctified by saying a prayer of thanksgiving over it to God, the provider of life.

 

[Quintessence]

I just wonder how a person could equate Pagans with demons. I haven't seen any evidence of a connection.

It makes sense in the context of historic propaganda and power struggles. Traditional (Pagan) religion and its practitioners was demonized through various means to help others rise to power and influence. This was very successful on the whole as it contextualized the very foundation of Western culture around narratives told by those who won that war. There is only one god - their god - and all others are false gods or demons. That's how their story goes, at any rate, and their promotion of this particular god-concept was so successful it has driven out other theological vocabulary almost entirely. I run into this frequently when trying to present non-monotheist theological ideas around here or elsewhere.

I'd say they won the battle, but not the war. Christianity's dying in the West. It's in terminal decline. Meanwhile, Heathenry just keeps growing and growing.

I dunno about that. Dialogues about theology and religion are still overwhelmingly dominated by Christian (or more broadly, Abrahamic) and monotheist assumptions. Because traditional (Pagan) religion doesn't proselytize, it's not going to aggressively fill the power vacuum left by the declining influence of Christianity. What's been replacing it is a religion is what we could call "Corporatism" - most significant power plays these days happen not amongst churches, but amongst large, monopolistic corporations. They now occupy the privileged niche the church once had - dominating politics just like the church once did. Because they are "secular" they're given a lot of leeway to control the people to benefit themselves. I'm often baffled by the concern over church influence in politics when the contemporary issue is corporations by a landslide...