The Artful Dodger (Fair Use)
The Christmas Experiment
The Tepid Armstrongist Response to the Challenge of Christmas
By Scout
"Fagin will make something of you, though, or you'll be the first he ever had that turned out unprofitable." The Artful Dodger, From “Oliver Twist”
Armstrongism handles the issue of Christmas paganism poorly. There have been several posts on this blog recently related to Christmas. I contributed one of the posts. And these are the points that concern me:
Point One: “How do Armstrongists deal with the logical issue of the Genetic Fallacy?”
In simple terms, why does a pagan history, now renounced, render modern, unimpeachable practice wrong? Should we then ferret out and abandon everything that is pagan? My Quaker ancestors renounced the names of the days of the week. They went to First Day, Second Day and so forth. So, this issue is not confined to Armstrongists. But none of the responses to the recent posts from people who seem to be Armstrongist, that I have seen, attempt to answer this question. If once pagan means always pagan, does that not besmirch God’s Creation forever?
Point Two: “Armstrongists have no consistent methodology for determining what is pagan.”
You would think they follow this kind of methodology: “If it has any historical pagan associations, we will reject it.” But this would lead them to reject Thanksgiving and wedding rings, for instance. And they do not. This inconsistency leads me to believe that they really follow this principle:
Point Three: “If the Armstrongist leadership says it is pagan then it is pagan. If the Armstrongist leadership says it is not pagan than it is not pagan. And this is in spite of any empirical evidence or logic.”
I would like Armstrongists to respond to the three points above, at length. What we have received so far are parroted sound bites from the Armstrongist pulpit. Does this mean that their pulpit has no answers or does it mean that those people who participate in this conversation have never really understood their denomination’s belief on this? The data is yet inconclusive because responses have been so off target, it is as if they were written by the Artful Dodger.
The recent Christmas posts on this blog could be viewed as an experiment. The line of reasoning probes the phenomenon of why Armstrongists believe what they believe. And I have a hypothesis. The Christmas polemic here indicates that the most important source of truth and understanding for Armstrongists is their denominational authority figures. They lay aside research, science, logic, midrash and exegesis and follow the words of an authority figure. (This takes exception to James Tabor who, I recall, posited that Biblical rationale was the most important factor in belief among churches that exalted the Old Testament.) And what they know about Christmas only goes as far as what the authority figures have said.
I would like to generalize this to all of their beliefs but I think that would be unfounded. Because my hypothesis here, though simple, lacks good, broad empirical data. Moreover, getting at the data is a problem because when I was an Armstrongist, and I was one for decades, I thought I had good, tight arguments in my hip pocket for everything. I was ready to take on a Protestant at a moment’s notice. But this was because my beliefs inside the Armstrongist community were never challenged only reinforced. And I always stayed inside the community. A theologically astute Protestant would have eaten my lunch. I just didn’t know it.
71 comments:
Binding and loosing is some powerful mojo, whether it's in the hands of a Pope or a Pastor General.
Anonymous 6:27
I think your description is apt. As practiced by Armstrongists, it is mojo. It certainly is not Biblical.
Scout
Oh, and we laughed at the Jehovah's Witnesses, for obtaining and parotting their "canned" bullet points and proofs at Kingdom Hall!
Walking in someone else's valence destroys one's unique innate characteristics. And for what??? Weren't those things that God gave us and intended for us to use and develop?
BB
The real issue about Xmas is not whether some (presumed) "Armstrongists" think Christmas is pagan. The point is that Xmas really is in fact pagan.
And what makes it pagan? Not because some "Armstrongists" think so. Because it is a RELIGIOUS celebration with origins in non-biblical religions (i.e. paganism). It has numerous links to paganism. It is a mix of paganism and Biblical Christianity (which is basically more paganism, if you really dig into it).
"I would like Armstrongists to respond to the three points above, at length."
I seriously doubt any Armstrongist would visit this site (unless by accident). All you will find here are former Armstrongists. All of whom should know that numerous Xmas religious practices are not biblical.
Respond at length and you waste your time trying to educate somebody who does not want to be educated. If he did he could have found out the facts himself by now. Why reinvent the wheel? We have more important things to do than talking to a brick wall when the information is already out there.
The Bible says God is a jealous God.
The Bible says do not do as the pagan religions do.
Xmas is full of pagan religious things not found in the bible.
The GLARING inconsistency is how some people know these scriptures yet somehow try to claim Xmas is okay for Christians.
The Armstrongist argument that Christmas is pagan is based on a whole lot of faulty reasoning. It can be attacked as a Genetic Fallacy. In logic, it does NOT follow that the origin of a thing makes any contribution to evaluating its merit. I prefer, however, to attack the ACOG narrative on Christmas as an Appeal to Authority (think Hislop and Woodrow), Fallacy of the Single Cause (think Saturnalia, Nimrod, Woden, Roman Catholic Church), Appeal to Motive (think Traditional Christian leaders), Appeal to Emotion (think nostalgia, greed, depression), or Association Fallacy (think evergreens and mistletoe).
I also agree with Scout that Armstrongists and Jehovah's Witnesses don't have any objective standard for evaluating what is and isn't pagan. Armstrongists and JW's also assert the Argument from Repetition (In other words, they've repeated their narrative so much that nobody bothers to challenge them anymore). As for getting these folks to make a substantive reply to Scout's three points, I wouldn't count on it! For those who are truly interested in this topic, I highly recommend the four-part series on Christmas on the "As Bereans Did" blog.
It's January 1st 2025 and you want to bait others into a argument over Christmas...and you call Sabbatarian Christians out of touch....
Maybe you would benefit more from a deep dive to explore the deeper meaning behind your own argumentative nature.
Anonymous 9:07 wrote, "The point is that Xmas really is in fact pagan."
See, this is the point. This is why I am asking these questions. You can't just say something is pagan and expect someone to believe you, unless you are speaking to an audience of the indoctrinated. Sound bites do not carry the day. You have to explain the rationale behind how you arrive at this conclusion.
I wrote this redux of a previous article because I could not believe how many Armstrongists did not respond to the issues but simply did an end run. If you need a starting point, explain why you keep Thanksgiving but not Christmas.
Nobody responded to the question.
Scout
Anonymous 9:14 wrote, "Respond at length and you waste your time trying to educate somebody who does not want to be educated."
This is what I would call an artful dodge. This is really what Armstrongists offer - a dodge. You can state your case here for everyone. So I see nothing that bars you from sending us a little Armstrongist Manifesto on Christmas.
By "at length" I mean more than the usual sound bite that Armstrongists deliver to us from their pulpit. We need to see the logic, if only stated breifly.
If you don't we can only assume that you yourself are not convinced of the integrity of your position.
Scout
This response fails to consider the implications of Paul's teaching concerning the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. Paul states that the idol and the things associated with it are ‘nothing’. A believer is not polluted by such association, as they have their faith in Christ, not the idol.
A believer in Christ is not made into a pagan by mere association with something as they look to Christ Himself.
But, there is a double fallacy because there’s no actual evidence that there was a festival of “the birth” of “Sol Invictus” on December 25th. It's all just vague guesswork using selected sources..
So, the answer fails to consider what other information is available showing 25 December has non pagan origins, not linked to Saturnalia.
I am not going to repeat it here as it becomes too lengthy. I doubt, however, a Armstrong follower would be willing to read more widely and in an even handed way, so embedded is the belief they are right.
It fails to address the three points of the question, merely repeating Armstrong/Jehovah Witness dogma.
These two organizations always like to claim its a special/one true church by knowing alleged 'truths' lesser 'professing Christians' are unable to understand.
Witnesses carry the pagan origin theory to the cross itself alleging it too is pagan, condemning those who wear a cross as a symbol of faith. I suspect many Armstrong followers would think the same.
Anonymous 9:11 wrote, "I seriously doubt any Armstrongist would visit this site (unless by accident)."
You visited this site and espoused an Armstrongist viewpoint when you wrote, "All of whom should know that numerous Xmas religious practices are not biblical."
I think it is more likely that Armstrongists do not visit this site to engage in discussion because the idea is alien to their praxis. They believe what they are told to believe and never reflect on the exegetical meaning and logic behind what they believe. When somebody challenges them, they don't know what to do except spew sound bites.
Scout
Scout
Even though I do enjoy your "challenge" posts, I do believe they are structured so that you always win the argument.
"respond and challenge"? " to be responded at length"?
You know full well that most are not going to put forth the kind of effort you demand, and WHEN THEY DO (multi-part man) you complain the response is "too long"! Even on your post on the " Cosmos" you stated in a comment, "I stripped out the scriptural references because I did not want to type them in". Join the club.
I do not know who 914 is referring to (Scout or Armstrongites), but the comment is a valid observation. There's no need to " reinvent the wheel--information is already out there". Look up "Christmas and Paganism" on YouTube. As 907 and 911 point out, it is not just an ARMSTRONG thing!
Also, I have pointed out before that "accepting the words of an authority figure" is commonplace in this world system. We were all forced to adhere to Fauci's 6 foot rule even though he testified before Congress that the idea "just sort of happened" and "wasn't based on scientific data".
What do we know, or can we really know about historic events and origins that happened thousands of years ago? There are often faint clues, theories, histories which were based on conjecture, and incredible spin which was often constructed to support various agendas. Compared to all recorded history, our own nation is relatively new, yet parts of our own history have been repressed, whispered about, but never acknowledged as being official fact, and this repression is, if anything, becoming worse in the present.
Armstrongism, and Armstrongites claimed to have "the truth". This was naive, and readily accepted by the gullible who for various reasons needed to believe it. The only thing we have today is knowledge as to how customs are used in the present time. Humans pick and choose, a practice which frequently distorts reality. Paganism was once a huge philosophy, and its practices dominant and pervasive. It would be very difficult to obliterate all of those practices. After all, the pagans drank water, ate food, and breathed air. Anyone want to stop those things? Well you can't. So we look at good, and bad in "the thing", and "usage of the thing". Even then, you'll never get to that mythical 100%. So, for the present, we look to current usages and predominant effect. Nobody has 100% truth, and acknowledging that is the only way in which life becomes practical instead of cultic and fanatical.
BB
Kinda hard to swallow when I read that Armstrong copied JW watchtower articles. I never wanted to be a JW when I was a kid. Imagine my irritation when I found out I was JW adjacent.
Is celebrating Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth pagan? I do not care if the date is wrong. Pick any day, is celebrating Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth pagan?
What if you celebrated it on a Saturday? Or on an old covenant holy day? Would it be pagan?
Didnt the WCG get some kind of payment for allowing the bleachers for the parade to be placed on church property. Also, I believe the WCG also had concessions permission, like selling programs, ushering, selling film et al.
BP8 7:21
What I am asking for is not rocket science. Any Armstrongist worth his/her salt should be able to tell you in three sentences or so why it is OK to keep Thanksgiving but not OK to keep Christmas. I am not asking for a book; I am asking for a precis. But the precis has to be more than a meaningless sound bite.
And I don't want to know why some one-off congregation somewhere in cultdom does not keep Christmas. I want to know why Armstrongists don't keep Christmas. I don't want to look in an Armstrongist archive because I don't know if modern Armstrongists even follow HWA on this topic.
This is not a big demand. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
Scout
The bible condemns Baal worship. The Israelites could have worshipped Baal (i.e engaged in the Baal worship practices) and said "what does it matter as long as I know who YHVH is and worship Him and believe in Him and follow Him? Baal is an idol. Baal is nothing. What difference does it make?"
Yeah what does it matter? Well, it mattered to YHVH!
There is a difference between going whole-hog into idol worship and eating meat offered to an idol. Xmas is going whole-hog into idol worship.
If HWA taught his followers that 2 + 2 = 4, some people would call that "Armstrongist" math and reject it on that basis. Then they would call anyone who says 2 + 2 = 4 an "Armstongist" who spews "soundbites" but is not capable of serious discussion. Someone who is not willing to discuss our newfound freedom in Jesus who does not require math to be in the kingdom.
And those who tell the brick wall to go learn math someplace else because they do not have time to teach math to bullheaded people are said to be "dodging" the issue.
News Flash: There are no "Armstrongists" on this site. Only former Armstrongists. Get it? So asking an "Armstrongist" to come forward and explain something is fishing in a pond where there are no fish and then claiming you won the argument because no fish came forward and refuted you to your satisfaction (all while being a bullheaded brick wall who ignores what was already said as if it was never said).
Does this "Scout" guy want to know if Xmas is pagan or does he want to know if Armstrongism can prove that Xmas is pagan? There is a difference.
Is celebrating Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth pagan? I do not care if the date is wrong. Pick any day, is celebrating Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth pagan?
If you celebrate Luke's account of Jesus' birth on a date that is patently impossible to be His birthday, you aren't honoring Jesus or Luke or God the Father.
When you read Luke carefully, it becomes clear that Christ was born sometime around the Fall Holy Days. Scripture doesn't say which, and because of that most ACOG people don't invent a day. Many say that the only birthday celebrations recorded in Scripture are of people who came to bad ends, which should warn us against doing the same.
But there are a few, mostly in groups descending from Garner Ted, who at some time during the Fall Holy Days make a point of remembering Christ's birth with gratitude. No trees, no presents, no Santa, just honoring and thanking God. If you are going to honor Christ's birth, that would be the way to do so.
Anonymous 4:27
If that is your standard you should not be keeping Thanksgiving and you
and your spouse should discard your wedding rings.
Scout
Anonymous 4:29
Going into Thanksgiving is also going whole-hog into idol worship. So is the wearing of wedding rings. You have set a standarad that requires that but you do not follow your standard.
Scout
Paul said you can eat meat offered to an idol. Did he say you can worship an idol? Did he say make a statue of Zeus or Satan and worship it? Did he say do whatever the pagans do?
The Bible set the standard, not me. What makes you think I do not follow it? Why do you care what I do? Your problem is to keep the Bible standard, if you are a Christian. What I do or fail to do does not exonerate you.
What is the basis for claiming that Thanksgiving is whole-hog idol worship? Or is that just a soundbite? Show us the proof. Don't be an artful dodger. Show us how pagan it really is and why it is so pagan. Show us that it has as many pagan religious trappings as Xmas. If you can show that, you can show that Christians should not keep Thanks giving.
Anonymous 7:52 wrote, "What is the basis for claiming that Thanksgiving is whole-hog idol worship? Or is that just a soundbite? Show us the proof."
I am a little ahead of you. This is the intro from an article that was posted on this blog on December 19th. You might want to find it and read the whole thing.
"The Armstrongist view on Christmas is really about self-righteousness. It is not about whether there is a pagan taint to some popular observation. Armstrongists, for instance, have never examined Thanksgiving. One could make a superficially plausible argument that Thanksgiving is contaminated by paganism. The Native Americans who met with the pilgrims were throughgoing pagans. By Armstrongist standards, so were the pilgrims. The pilgrims believed in the Trinity. In addition, Thanksgiving is rooted in sin. Armstrongists used to believe, and maybe still do, that Native Americans were Canaanites. And Israel was not supposed to make treaties with Canaanites but was supposed to exterminate them. So, the first Thanksgiving celebration was a sinful rebellion against God. So, we have two rebellious, pagan peoples inaugurating an observance in early America that Armstrongists everywhere now cheerfully celebrate. "
Scout
The ACOGs have regularly put out articles just prior to Xmas pointing out its pagan origin in reasonable detail. So I don't believe it's jus an argument from authority as this article claims. I also don't believe it will exist after Christ's return. Wedding rings are pagan? Not all traditions are wrong just because some pagans somewhere did it in the past.
Decending from Garner Ted Anon 5:35? Ha ha ! Would have been better to get your facts correct first.
Nothing to do with GTA.
Ronald Dart in the 90s after setting up Christian Educational Ministries became concerned over learning through the CEM children projects that lots of the children had bare to no knowledge of the gospel accounts of Jesus's birth, and humble beginnings. The scriptures relating to the nativity of Jesus had been for decades completely ignored, especially amongst the home schooled American children.
His and the CEM boards attempted to correct this, by including Jesus's birth into the Feast of Tabernacles. They also included a entire 'Youth day' into the feast to encourage younger generations to worship God. These ideas received criticism from other COG groups and Ron Dart took criticism for 'doing xmas at the feast'. But it was nothing to do with GTA.
Anonymous 11:04 wrote, "Not all traditions are wrong just because some pagans somewhere did it in the past."
This priniple you have applied to wedding rings can be applied to Christmast. This is what I am writing about. Armstrongists do not have a methodology for determing what holidays are acceptable and which are not. Someone in their leadership made an arbitrary decision in the past and that is what they follow.
The articles published by the COGs on Christmas just contain bogus arguments that are selectively applied. Whether or not there is an article is not a criterion for anything. It is the authority behind the COG praxis and the authority behind any articles.
Scout
COGs and Christmas
Let me tell you what I think the Rejection of Christmas is to the COGs. It is a denominational distinctive. It is not predicated on theology. It is an element of praxis that has no consistent implementing methodology concerning past paganism associated with it. It is, rather, an arbitrary element of praxis that is sustained by the authority of those who assert it.
Some of my relatives did not continue, in years long past, in the Society of Friends. They migrated to a church that did not believe in using musical instruments in its services and it did not believe in dancing. Because there was no evidence of the use of musical instruments in worship in the NT and dancing was just lewd. That church also, back in those days, was not supportive of Christmas. My grandmother had qualms about Christmas. After looking at the etiology of these beliefs, I believe that the stance of that church on Christmas was the same as their stance on music and dancing. It was about being distinct from other people and by implication better than other people. The theology was dubious but the desire for distinctiveness was strong.
I have no trouble with denominational distinctives as long as they do not pivot on heresy. If COGs wish to eschew Christmas as a denominational policy, that would be fine with me. But if COGs assert that observing Christmas is evil and everyone must eschew it, that is a different story. They have moved from the simplicity and privacy of denominational distinctiveness into the Christian Doctrine of Soteriology. Unfortunately, I believe Armstrongists have done this.
Scout
If you trash a huge group of people as being "falsely so-called", logic dictates that you would also need to substantiate that by citing their error, or wrong customs, assuming that you would want your accusations to carry weight.
Before the WCG time and date stamp expired, it was extremely difficult to do the research which would form the basis for a second opinion on HWA's blatant name calling. Most people read what he presented, said to themselves "Oh, I didn't know that!" and either left it at that, or got baptized and then went about searching additional information to support HWA's conclusions. They might have used Hislop to confirm (an HWA-approved resource).
These days, information is available to anyone who can click a mouse, and there is a treasure trove of Christian history, and Christian thinking going back to the first centuries of the so-called common era. Many things which HWA taught are easily dispelled or disproven. And these things have been presented over and over and over again right here and on other blogs which have since passed into antiquity. People who were taught not to second source "God's Apostle" reject any materials written by Sunday-keeping Christians after seeing the first few sentences which counter what HWA taught them. And this is after numerous failures, not the least of which was 1975!
We've recently seen other examples of beliefs which are easily debunked being shamelessly repeated even though the people spouting them are barely literate fools who have allowed their gurus to make a mess of their lives. There is no hope for the willfully ignorant. Some eventually get shaken by a catastrophic life-changing event, but most end up dying in their misbeliefs, and actually lauding one another for so-doing.
Suppose we accept Scout's view of Thanksgiving. That would prove that Thanksgiving is not Biblical. So is Scout going to give up Thanksgiving and follow the Bible more closely now? Or does he just want to bash Armstrongism? He wants to find inconsistency in other religions, not in his own.
If it is okay for a Christian to keep Xmas, why not keep Ramadan also? Why not worship elephants like the Hindus do?
If "Christians" can keep Xmas, which is clearly pagan, what is their argument for not explicitly worshiping Satan? The Bible regards all paganism as Satan worship. Having crossed that line with Xmas keeping (or even keeping thanksgiving if thanksgiving is pagan), where do the stop and why?
"One could make a superficially plausible argument that Thanksgiving is contaminated by paganism."
It sounds like Scout is not convinced by his own argument that Thanksgiving is pagan.
Honestly, one thing I think we can all agree on is that we all know churchgoers who won't put their money where their mouths are. If they decided to adopt the intents of Ramadan, it'd probably be a good thing.
Scout 258 asks,
Why do Armstrongites not keep Christmas and is it ok to keep Thanksgiving but not ok to keep Christmas?
I'm too far removed from Armstrongism to even remember why they did and didn't do a lot of things. I no longer have any of their literature. But I do know that most of the Christian YouTube podcasters are not "one off congregations somewhere in cultdom", but are well known names in the circle of modern Christianity, and they have no problem pointing out paganism as they see it, even though they continue to observe the day making Jesus the reason.
I myself take part in both cultural Thanksgiving and cultural Christmas but without the dominating blatant commercialism. I enjoy the physical things, the family, the food, the sports, and might even give a couple of bucks to the grandkids, but there is no pretense that it has anything at all to do with Jesus Christ! I don't need either of those 2 days to give thanks or honor Him.
To answer the Christmas, Thanksgiving enigma from a " Christianity " point of view, one only has to look at how Romans 14:5-6 is defined in religious circles. It's a matter of Christian liberty! If I want to keep one, both, or neither, it's my decision. We shall all stand or fall before the Master.
9:43 and 10:00 - The premise of this post is that Christmas is NOT pagan! The historical research behind the paganism narrative was deeply flawed and originated in the Anti-Catholic climate of the Protestant Reformation. The PLAIN TRUTH is that Christmas is a Christian invention based on the two canonical Gospel accounts of Christ's birth! Indeed, the majority of our current traditions relative to that holiday are the product of the last two hundred years. Once again, look at the actual history of Christmas.
I have a question for those who debunked Armstrongism and turned to conventional Christianity. Why stop there? Why not keep going? Why not keep researching? Why escape the trap of Armstrongism only to remain trapped in Christianity? Why not debunk Christianity? Then all religion and escape the religion trap entirely? Then all ideologies and escape the trap of ideological thinking? Then all worldviews and escape the trap of fixed paradigms entirely?
Christmas is a Christian invention based on the two canonical Gospel accounts of Christ's birth!
People can come with numerous NON-BIBLICAL traditions and beliefs that purport to be "based on" scripture. That does not make them Christian. And it does not make them biblical. Just like Herbert and his doctrines about makeup and birthdays were "based on" scripture.
If they started keeping the Ramadan festival itself in the same way that Muslims so, would they still be Christians?
Mr Jones, you need to dig deeper into the historical roots of Xmas. Xmas has its roots in paganism, and began long before the Protestants came along, and even before Christ was purported to have been born.
Let's start at the logical beginning. Why is Xmas kept three days after the Winter solstice? The timing of Xmas is definitely pagan.
Further, like all religions, paganism evolves. So adding new trappings to a fundamentally pagan religion does not make it a Christian religion.
Further, Xmas is a mixture of "Christian" and pagan practices. The "Christian" way to keep Xmas, if there were one, would be to eliminate all the pagan parts of it. The first thing they would need to do is to move the date to get it away from the Winter Solstice.
Excellent thought process. You throw away one set of crutches and replace it with another.
Anonymous Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 12:13:00 PM PST,
I can only speak for myself, but I suspect that some of the other folks who have debunked Armstrongism might relate to some of my answers to your questions. Having emerged from the mental straitjacket that was Armstrongism, I continue to question and research (and suspect that I will continue those pursuits until I am no longer able to do so). Now, although I embrace my brothers and sisters who share my belief in (and acceptance of) Jesus of Nazareth as our Savior, I am NOT a part of ANY organized group or denomination (although I do fellowship with various groups from time to time). Moreover, although I believe in a general "conventional" or "traditional" Christian orthodoxy, I have also debunked several of the beliefs/teachings/dogmas of the groups which fit under those monikers.
I am NOT a fan of manmade/human organized religion, and I do NOT subscribe to the notion of biblical inerrancy. I consider myself to be an independent thinker, and I believe that individual conscience must be the only test of any belief system or moral code. I believe that Christians do NOT possess perfect understanding or truth in the present (I include myself), and that God intended for us to GROW in grace, knowledge, love, and unity. In other words, I believe that we were meant to keep questioning - to keep seeking to understand - to continue to learn, until we draw our last breath or become cognitively impaired. Finally, I am a strong believer in logic and am very aware of the false dilemma - two-dimensional or black and white thinking distort our perspective and lead to flawed conclusions/answers.
Mr. Anonymous @ 4:06,
Although my own research and posting on the subject is extensive, I would like to suggest the four-part series by xHWA on the "As Bereans Did" blog for a more in-depth look at the history of Christmas.
My viewpoints to some of the issues raised:
” So is Scout going to give up Thanksgiving and follow the Bible more closely now?”
I am going to give up neither Thanksgiving nor Christmas. I believe that both have been retreaded and are now perfectly good Christian holidays. Their pagan histories are past and have now become irrelevant. I think the Genetic fallacy is a valid evaluation of what Armstrongists think. I also have a wedding ring.
“If "Christians" can keep Xmas, which is clearly pagan, what is their argument for not explicitly worshiping Satan? “
Christmas is not “clearly” pagan. I wish you could get the picture. It draws from pagan sources from long ago but in its modern incarnation it is Christian. Nobody is doing animism when they observe Christmas any more. The ancient Canaanites had a Feast of Ingathering that occurred just after the grape harvest in Autumn. Should we cancel the Feast of Tabernacles because it is clearly pagan?
“It sounds like Scout is not convinced by his own argument that Thanksgiving is pagan.”
I stated that one could make a superficially plausible argument that Thanksgiving is contaminated by paganism. I stated it that way because I regard the “superficially plausible argument” to be the Genetic Fallacy that Armstrongists follow. I just didn’t expand. Didn’t think anyone was reading what I wrote. I personally do not believe the modern Thanksgiving as observed by Christians is in any way contaminated by paganism.
If we regarded everything that has some human-generated pagan association, including snowy landscapes, eggnog and December 25th, even though Christians have re-modeled it, how do we ever free God’s creation from contamination? The contamination is in the human heart. Jesus said, “Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth (including eggnog) enters the stomach and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles.”
Further, would I get an Asherah pole, if it were a phallic symbol (there is some doubt that it was), and put it up in the backyard and make it the centerpiece for some celebration? No. This is unrecoverable to Christianity. This does require some common sense.
Scout
Miller wrote, "I believe that Christians do NOT possess perfect understanding or truth in the present (I include myself), and that God intended for us to GROW in grace, knowledge, love, and unity."
I very much believe in this progressive development of the individual under the direction of God. Gregory of Nyssa referred to it as Epektasis and based it on scripture. In the past, I have been alarmed that there are Armstrongists who claim to have a handy understanding of God. One Armstrongist asserted to me that if you didn't have a full and present understanding of God, how is Christianity worth anything. But one does see why they would draw this conclusion. They expect to be God-as-God-is-God, so if they are to become pretty much equal to God, they must have a comprehensive knowledge of him. The hubris in this view is smothering.
Scout
I can’t understand Armstrongites, especially at Christmas.
The Armstrongites claim that the celebration of the birth of Jesus is not biblical, despite the Angels rejoicing over the blessed event in Luke 2:113-14:
Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
Do the Armstrongites believe the heavenly host were pagans? Why are we who follow the example of rejoicing, like the heavenly host, branded as pagan?
Then, Armstrongites have their long list, they’ve checked it twice, of all the customs and objects associated with Christmas that they declare to be pagan.
Armstrongites lack the wisdom to understand that although Christmas is a religious celebration for Christians, it’s also a cultural holiday for many, including people of various religions and no religion. Many of the supposed items on the Armstrongite pagan list have no place in the Christian celebration of Christmas, such as Santa Clause and all the materialism. Even if a Christian indulges in Christmas shopping and gives a nod to Santa, those customs are not a part of that Christian’s religious celebration. One would think that the “true church” would be able to differentiate cultural features of Christmas from the religious celebration of the birth of Jesus.
If we were to concede (which I do not) that Christmas trees, wreaths, ornaments, and whatever else is on the Armstrongite list of pagan symbols really are pagan – these symbols are not objects of worship or used in an act of worship.
One of the churches I went to this Christmas had a Christmas tree on the altar. The tree was decorated with ornaments that commemorated Jesus, such as lambs, crosses, and stars. Even with the prominent location of the tree, that tree was not worshipped or even mentioned during the religious celebration.
Armstrongites would cite the mere presence of the tree on the altar as proof that decoration was a part of the worship. Yet, Armstrongites are comfortable with the weird Masonic symbols in the halls they like to rent for their religious services. However, the Armstrongite logic applied to the “pagan tree” should logically also state that the Masonic symbols are therefore part of Armstrongite worship.
The Armstrongites cannot entertain any Christian explanation of the use of December 25 as the date believed to be the birth of Jesus because Armstrongites have found sources that state that date was used to celebrate the Winter Solstice and the birth of the sun god; therefore, December 25 is pagan evil.
However, when the Sabbath falls on December 25, the Armstrongites feel free to worship on that date, in the presence of the Masonic symbols – and they believe they are honoring God. Magically, December 25 is not pagan, only for Armstrongites, if it falls on a Saturday.
At Christmas, Armstrongites especially bash the “false Christians” with assertions that only they, the “true church” keep the commandments of Jesus. The Christmas Eve sermon, in that church that had the tree on the altar, covered the birth of Jesus and the new command that Jesus gave (John 13).
I have never seen the Armstrongites expound on the new commandment that Jesus gave. I have heard an Armstrongite disagree with Jesus’ statement that he gave a new commandment.
I’ve encountered many Armstrongite booklets, articles, and sermons about the Old Covenant Ten Commandments – those commandments that were forever, drastically changed by Jesus – even though Armstrongites insist that not one jot or tittle has been changed from the law – I guess that must also be another Armstrongite denial that Jesus gave a new command.
Armstrongism in not very logical, or biblical …. they don’t seem to be too happy with Jesus entering the world and changing and adding to their beloved law. But, Armstrongites are totally cool with how their Herbie concocted his own proprietary blend of the law.
In the Holy Bible, in Leviticus 23:1-44, God listed his Sabbaths and festivals for his followers to remember and observe.
Jesus observed these Sabbaths and festivals in New Testament times.
People, including supposedly religious types (even professing “Christians”), seem to want nothing to do with God's Sabbaths and festivals, but go on to make up endless traditions and festivals of their own to remember and observe.
"Christmas is a Christian invention ... "
If it was not invented by Jesus, can it still be a Christian invention? If his followers add to his religion, are they still his followers, and is it still his religion?
You shall not add to or diminish from My commands - Deut 12:32, as in Lev 23. Xmas is not in Lev 23.
"If it was not invented by Jesus, can it still be a Christian invention? If his followers add to his religion, are they still his followers, and is it still his religion?"
Like Herbie substituting hotels for booths? Like the apostles creating the office of deacon to help with service for fellowship? Like Herbie inventing the worship service format still used by most of the ACOGs?
Mixing Christianity with Islam is already a thing. In church street vernacular, it is called Chrislam. And no, Wade "Electrolux" Cox did not start it. He sure has embraced it though!
Those funny distinctively "East Side London" ears that stick out instead of lying more or less flat along the head!! What would a proper artful dodger be without them! That may be why the first Brit rock stars ditched their Teddy Boy ducktails and let their hair grow out to cover their ears.
BB
Let me state something as clearly as possible.
Christmas has vestigial pagan connections – mostly in symbolism. The same can be said about Thanksgiving and other manners and customs of modern society that Armstrongists do observe. None of these connections define present day observation of Christmas. Nobody pours a glass of wine on a Yule log and then burns the log in dedication to Odin. When was the last time you saw this at a church service? Never. If you brought this up, Christians wouldn’t even know what you are talking about.
None of these pagan-rooted observations, manners and customs, some of which Armstrongists observe, are prescribed in the OT. You cannot find Thanksgiving in the book of Leviticus. Nor can you find the Fourth of July in Leviticus. You can’t find staying in a motel at the Feast in Leviticus. In fact, the Torah specifically requires that you stay in a brush arbor.
So, someone gives us a sound bite they heard from their pulpit: “It’s not in Leviticus.” So, what does that mean? What is the rationale? How does that impact Christianity? We know how it affects apocalyptic Millerites but that is not germane to the Biblical discussion. That is a denominational issue. How does the denominational issue get promoted to a requirement for salvation?
Scout
What has Herbie got to do with it? You are just ignoring the question because you don't like Herbie. Neither does anyone else on this site. Strawman argument.
(shrug) If a group of Christians decided to institute a month long fast for devotions sake and they do this "as to the Lord", then sure, why not? I dont give a damn.
People on here keep bashing Armstrong to justify keeping Xmas. What Armstrong did is irrelevant. He was a fraud who raped his own daughter. That does not justify keeping Xmas. Nothing Armstrong did or said has anything to do with it one way or the other. You can bash Armstrongists all you want. That has nothing to do with whether you should keep Xmas. The argument that Herbert was wrong about this or that is frankly stupid. It is completely irrelevant.
According to the Bible, all non-biblical practices are Satan worship. Modern Christianity is NOT a Biblical religion. They abandoned the Bible long ago, mixing it with paganism. They try to mix worshiping Satan with worshiping Jesus. Only a false Jesus would accept that.
Xmas is not in Lev. Or ANYWHERE in the Bible. Ordaining deacons is.
Xmas has only "vestigial" pagan connections. Yeah right. Nobody keeps it on Dec 25 anymore? Why is it kept on Dec 25? Why don't Christians get rid of all the "vestigial" pagan connections. What would be left?
It's not in Leviticus (or anywhere in the Bible). How does that impact Christianity?
Well it does not impact modern "Christianity" because modern Christianity does not care much about the Bible anyway.
Like I said before, it is a waste of time arguing with a brick wall who only wants to justify what he wants to do. Total waste of time.
It is useless to point out that Xmas is pagan to somebody who refuses to examine the evidence that Xmas is pagan and simply assumes the only evidence comes from Armstrongism.
So true, Scout! Most Christians would be deeply hurt by any implications that their faith and very sincere worship activities had anything to do with anything other than Jesus Christ, their Messiah, their Savior, their everything.
HWA deeply hurt his former brethren at COG7 by labeling them as "Sardis".
All things considered, HWA was the "shock jock" of religion. He preached the law in ways that caused his followers to generate consistently bad karma. Had his style been a little different, perhaps he would have drawn many more people into what he called "God's True Church."
As Scout has clarified his position, I wish to state my own position on this issue as clearly as possible. If we consider the use of Holly, evergreen boughs, and Yule logs to be vestigial elements of paganism, that suggests that ANYTHING that was ever employed by the pagans in their rituals or observances is tainted by paganism! I do NOT subscribe to that view.
The Brumalia and Saturnalia were NOT associated with December 25th, and there is good reason to believe that a festival associated with Sol Invictus was instituted as a reaction to Christians associating that day with Christ's birth (NOT the other way around). Moreover, its association with Mithras came even later. The Emperor Aurelian did dedicate a temple to the sun on December 25th in 274 A.D. Hence, it is clear that the canonical Gospel accounts of Christ's nativity were in circulation almost two hundred years before the Romans incorporated this date into their sun worship, and many more years before it was associated with Mithras.
Although Christians began celebrating Christ's birthday in the Second Century, the December 25th date was not widely accepted until the Fourth Century. Indeed, the earliest designation of it on a calendar was also the earliest designation for it being designated as the birthday of Sol Invictus!
Our modern celebration of Christmas is directly attributable to a legend surrounding a Christian bishop of the Fourth Century, Saint Nicholas. The Christmas tree was borrowed from a German tradition which appears to have arisen in the 16th Century and was transferred to England in the 19th Century. Our current imagery associated with Santa Claus, sleighs, and reindeer can be traced to writings and drawings of the 19th Century. And, of course, most of our music, stories, art, and films arose in the 20th Century!
Post a Comment