Jump to content
The World News Media

Day of one's Birth vs. Birthday celebrations


Recommended Posts


  • Views 1.4k
  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When this came up elsewhere on jw-archive someone quoted the Watchtower article on Valentine's Day. I won't do that here, but I'm sure you know the information. Valentine's Day is still tied, in name

Why? Do you think that everything will have a scriptural answer? Or should have one? Scripture tells us that Paul reasoned with people to prove it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die, and t

The reference is to celebrating the birth of one's baby boy or girl. Nothing can stop a man from celebrating that. He is not celebrating the day only the fact that it happened. Birthdays are a re

Posted Images

  • Member
20 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I know the usual answer of being that two birthdays were mentioned and each time someone was killed/beheaded, and I am not picking this out of your response as your main point. I am just familiar with this reasoning and If this is the measuring stick, then it stands to reason that taking a nap in the afternoon is also evil. According to 2 Samuel 4:5-7, Ish-bosheth was taking an afternoon nap and was beheaded.

Your example is not valid because others evidently took naps and were not beheaded. :/ In fact, Jonah's nap under a bottle-gourd plant is associated with the repentance and salvation of a whole city.

Proverbs 23:24 You'll take afternoon naps without a worry, you'll enjoy a good night's sleep. (The Message Bible translation)

Luke 8:23 On the way across, Jesus lay down for a nap, and while he was sleeping the wind began to rise. (NLT)

However, it is possible to find that 100% of the references to "indoor plumbing" resulted in a violent death. Dogs were also associated with violence and evil in nearly 100% of the references to them. For information on "dogs," just go through any Bible concordance and you'll see it's true. For "indoor plumbing" this passage from Judges is the only direct reference to it:

(Judges 3:20-24) Then Eʹhud said: “I have a message from God for you.” So he rose up from his throne [Heb. "seat"]. 21 Then Eʹhud drew the sword from his right thigh with his left hand and plunged it into his belly. 22 The handle went in after the blade, and the fat closed in over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly, and the fecal matter came out. 23 Eʹhud went out through the porch [Heb. "air vent"], closing the doors of the roof chamber behind him and locking them. 24 After he left, the servants returned and saw that the doors of the roof chamber were locked. So they said: “He must be relieving himself in the cool interior room.”

In fact, only the rich and members of royalty had the kinds of resources to throw banquets and have indoor plumbing. This no doubt is the basis for the fact that it was only kings who were celebrating birthdays. The faithful Job, as a patriarch, had resources similar to royalty, too. This may be why we see each of Job's sons, having a banquet day, and then Job showing concern for whether any of them had "overindulged." 

(Job 1:2-5) Seven sons and three daughters were born to him [Job]. 3 His livestock amounted to 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 1,000 cattle, and 500 donkeys, along with a very large number of servants, so that he became the greatest of all the people of the East. 4 Each of his sons would hold a banquet at his house on his own set day. They would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 After a series of banquet days was complete, Job would send for them in order to sanctify them. Then he would get up early in the morning and offer up burnt sacrifices for each of them. For Job said: “Maybe my sons have sinned and have cursed God in their heart.” That is what Job would always do.

It's not impossible that those banquet days were also based on their birthdays. Whether or not Job's sons used the exact calendar day of their birth can't be known, but it is still something that these sons repeated as a "series" or a "cycle," and something that Job recognized repeatedly. Full disclosure: There is no direct evidence that Job attended these banquets, and Job's sons were also killed at some point after a series of these banquet days.

A Measuring Stick?

I wanted to mention, too, that I agree that the examples of John the Baptist and the account of Joseph and Pharaoh are used as a kind of "measuring stick." But I don't really believe that this was the real reason behind the birthday prohibitions that Brother Rutherford promoted. I think the real reason was to finally separate fellow JWs from following Brother Russell, who had happily promoted the celebration and tracking of birthdays. It seems that almost every Bible Student used a birthday book published by the Watch Tower called "Daily Heavenly Manna" on the outside spine, but with the title: "My Friends their Birthdays and Autographs" on the front cover. (Almost every used copy ever discovered has Brother Russell's own birthday figuring very prominently, including the two copies in the Bethel Library).

Brother Rutherford was concerned about this "creature worship" but he was not that concerned with "worship" of children, but of Brother Russell himself. Although he went along with it for many years after Russell's death, he privately told A.H.MacMillan that he hated it and would get rid of it if it was the last thing he did. See the book "Faith on the March" p.122:

"J.F.Rutherford . . . had another purpose. Before he left Atlanta he had determined to rid the organization of creature worship."

This was a real problem, and it made the Bible Students into a kind of "cult of Brother Russell." That's easy to see if you read what the other Bible Students were saying about Russell, especially after his death. In fact, here is something Brother Russell allowed to be published about himself even before his death, in the Bible Student's Monthly, June 1915:

"How Brother Russell Ranks in Greatness"

If C.T.Russell had devoted his life to business, it is easy to guess that John D. Rockefeller would not now be the richest man in the world, nor would J.P.Morgan have been the prince of financiers. . . . And so the man . . . is a Napoleon of finance and business. . . . Pastor Russell . . . has remarkable mental talents of the most varied character . . . like a great poet or a Hebrew seer, it is if Isaiah and J.P.Morgan were united in one individual! . . .  discrimination and analysis of a great lawyer . . . passages from his pen take their place among English classics. Another phase of his many-sided greatness is his scientific talent. . . . A mind like Agazziz and Newton.

Even Brother Rutherford had joined those voices saying:

"Charles Taze Russel, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king; and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." - Watchtower, December 1, 1916, [Reprints p.6015.]

When Brother Rutherford finally started working on this problem, he was trying to change the culture that had been the legacy of Brother Russell. It would take a while. Here are a couple of names from a portion of the 1951 Yearbook listing brothers who had been appointed to special positions at Bethel branches, or as District and Circuit Overseers ("servants"): The Yearbook introduced the list with the following statement:

The Society has appointed many individuals to take up certain duties in various parts of the earth in branch homes, in circuit and district work and in missionary homes. A few of those who are placed in positions of greater responsibility and who hold special appointments from the Society are brethren whose names are listed on the following pages.

..... [p. 51]

Peterson, Charles Taze Russell...

Poggensee, Russell Taze...

Rusk, Fred, Jr. ...

Schroeder, Albert Darger

 

[see picture uploaded with this post]

I only included Fred Rusk's and A.D.Schroeder's name because just now I saw their names included on adjacent pages, and was just remembering how both of them had asked me who would be giving my wedding talk. When Bert Schroeder asked I had already agreed to have Fred Rusk to give it. (Both are now deceased.)

At any rate, there are a lot of reasons to tie this teaching to the problem of the culture that had developed around Brother Russell. Certain kinds of dress and grooming were also frowned upon for the same reasons, according to Rutherford. I know that others have guessed that it was also related to Rutherford's opinion about children and his attempts to differentiate JWs from the world and help them avoid worldly associations. I'm sure all these could have been factors, too.

 

s-l1600 (2).jpg

March2014KMmemorial.jpg

russell.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The Society has appointed many individuals to take up certain duties in various parts of the earth in branch homes, in circuit and district work and in missionary homes. A few of those who are placed in positions of greater responsibility and who hold special appointments from the Society are brethren whose names are listed on the following pages.

This is only indirectly related to the subject of birthdays except as it relates to the issue of "creature worship." A second look at the 1951 Yearbook reveals a few more examples of this same kind of problem (at least as Brother Rutherford apparently saw it).

The list of those with "special appointments" to "positions of greater responsibility" also included the Yeatts family. 

Anyway the point here is the first and middle names of:

Hugh Macmillan Yeatts

Thomas Russell Yeatts 

.

That might be considered just a coincidence, even if you know that the H in A H Macmillan (author of "Faith on the March") stood for "Hugh". He happens to be listed in the same yearbook as "Alexander Hugh Macmillan." If that's not convincing enough, flip forward a couple more pages in the same 1951 Yearbook and see who graduated from the February 1950 Class of the Watchtower School of Gilead:

Brother William Rutherford Yeatts and his wife Mrs. William Rutherford Yeatts.  

yeatts.png

yeatts2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

You have made my point. There is no sound reason, nor biblical reason for the adherence of not celebrating a birthday. It was only to distinguish the group from what others have done. To make the group different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

You have made my point. There is no sound reason, nor biblical reason for the adherence of not celebrating a birthday. It was only to distinguish the group from what others have done. To make the group different.

Shiwiii,

Let's say you are right, and there was not a specific Biblical reason. The Christian congregation always expected, until the "day of the Lord," that imperfect men would take the lead, and that the rest of us Christians would obey, unless such obedience conflicted with Jehovah's word. So we can expect dozens, maybe hundreds, of little things that could be done differently.

Perhaps the more important questions, however, should be how much does it matter to us? Or, why does it matter to us? I hope you don't mind, but I will probably ramble on a bit to get out some of my own ideas on this subject.

There are obviously going to be plenty of things to celebrate in life with our children, our relatives and those in the congregation. So we don't necessarily miss out on celebrations by choosing to follow the lead in this particular matter. Once or twice a year we could create an age-appropriate spiritual, physical, or mental goal of some kind for young ones and celebrate its attainment with them, and with their friends, too. Maybe that's too much work for some parents, or too much planning, when a birthday is kind of pre-planned, passive event, every time the date rolls around. Perhaps the birthday party is a more balanced way to handle regular (necessary) gift-giving and attention for multiple children when each has their own day, as it were. Maybe celebrating "achievements" would be too much attention on the child, and result in comparisons and competition. We'd have to consider not just the personalities of our children but their friends and others around him. But even if the traditional birthday party sounds fair and just, how easy is it to keep children from comparing the kinds of gifts and attention that a friend from a wealthier family would get.

When we consider principles like "keep yourselves without spot from the world" some Witness parents might come to the same conclusion against birthdays, even without the reasons that we usually give each other for why we don't celebrate. 

In fact, there is a whole world out there of people who are not in the same situation we are in. Most brothers in Viet Nam, for example, are living under very different economic circumstances than most who are in the United States. When we reflect on being a world-wide brotherhood, perhaps we could reflect on how others are getting along in their lives and ministries, and we might think of foregoing some of the economic privileges that others aren't able to enjoy. A global perspective might make birthdays seem un-serious.

I think about how the first Puritans and several generations of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians came to this country and thought birthday parties were frivolous, and forbid the celebration of Christmas -- long before Christmas was infused with so much tradition and materialism. It was more just a matter of seriousness in their Christian lives. And of course, their lives were harsher in terms of leisure time than our own, much like hundreds of thousands of JWs around the world in places where they still scrape by to eke out a living.

J.F.Rutherford no doubt thought that this kind of seriousness was the only correct way for Christians to live while they were always only months away from the manifestation of Jesus Christ to bring about Jehovah's day of judgment. He no doubt thought of his own role as leading in the way one of the early "Old Testament Judges" led Jehovah's people. Was he wrong to think this way?

Maybe in a lot of the details he was very wrong. But was he telling the flock to go against Jehovah?

I also suspect that Rutherford actually saw the benefit in separating JWs from association with the world. If birthdays were just easily accepted as OK, without giving serious thought to their propriety, then it would be a slippery slope to unnecessary association with worldly relatives. Rutherford also didn't think Christian couples should be having children with Armageddon always only a few months away, but he also believed children should be brought up seriously. For the time that Rutherford was leading JWs, the flock was small, and things happened that could have seriously damaged opportunities for growth. He almost lost the entire Society in 1917. He almost lost everything again when Olin Moyle exposed his (Rutherford's) weaknesses as a Christian leader. There were times when the very existence of JWs was precarious, due to widespread persecution before WWII, and revolutions, and post WWI political decisions in Europe and Asia, etc. (I was told by persons who knew him well, that even Hayden Covington could have pretty much split the organization in half at one point after he was disfellowshipped, and had to be talked out of it.) Rutherford had serious, serious problems to deal with and he made leadership decisions based on the climate of the times. 

Rutherford always seemed to keep in mind the need to advertise and market the organization. He often asked fellow JWs to follow instructions that would make us stand out as very different from others. And this was a pattern that appeared to work, from this advertising perspective too. Children in school were quickly identified for their flag salute, holiday and birthday stance. If effect, every single JW child was witnessing to a whole school of students and teachers every day. They created curiosity that sometimes lasted a lifetime.

I have never been one to say that just because something was done in the past that it should remain. That's the problem of following traditions. We should continue to rethink our position on all our teachings, constantly making sure of the more important things and holding fast to what is fine. But we shouldn't let our own traditions make the word of God invalid. And we should prioritize. But we also look for those major things on which we can easily agree. And no one should become petty in asking for a re-appraisal of decisions just because of our own preferences.

Psychologically, I imagine it would be very difficult for the current Governing Body to rethink this particular position, because it would give the impression that they no longer think the end is so close, and that becoming more and more mainstream is perfectly acceptable. But I also think that most JWs would welcome such a change, because many JWs are known to celebrate birthdays in their own way anyway. JW Grandparents send gifts to their non-Witness grandchildren on their birthdays and even around Christmas season. My own parents send items to non-Witness cousins and nephews and nieces around the time of these events (because it also gives them an excuse to send a letter, or link, or publications, witnessing to them).

The way such a change is made (to avoid stumbling and hurt feelings) is just to say that many Witnesses have found that they are able to participate to a limited extent in such activities, especially if it is combined with the opportunity to remind their children and their friends about how "Jehovah gives every good and perfect gift" etc. etc. etc. And a reminder that each parent, just as with anniversaries, may handle these events differently as a matter of conscience. Within a few years, the entire culture around such events changes. This particular issue will not be so easy because it will beg the question of Jesus' birthday - Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

JW Insider,

I agree with your thoughts. I see that you have thought this through and looked at it from a bigger perspective than just adherence. The idea of adding additional rules and "laws" to separate a group has been around since the Pharisees. If we look at the additional laws Jews put upon themselves in regards to the Sabbath, we can easily see why and how this tradition becomes a burden and a stumbling block. I have no problem with a group not celebrating an event such as birthdays, but I do have a problem when it is expressed as a biblical teaching. You and I both know that it is not. 

As far as the society becoming mainstream, isn't that already in motion? Wasn't it just a few years ago that the internet was to be avoided, but now it is accepted but only under certain rules established by the society themselves? I'm not trying to derail the conversation, just making a point that you brought up. My point is that the society has created their own rules/laws just as the Jews did. That's fine, but don't proclaim it is biblical. 

We can learn a lot from looking at things from a global perspective. What I mean is your example of the people in Vietnam, and how they live on so little, but yet we in western countries throw away our resources. It is a shame and we ought to think about how spoiled we really are. The western world will never take this into consideration, it is only a few small groups who try and do anything about it, but it should be on our minds. 

 

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We should continue to rethink our position on all our teachings, constantly making sure of the more important things and holding fast to what is fine.

I agree, however is this for the individual witness or are they to "wait on Jehovah"? You see this comment IS biblical from both Acts 17:11 and 2 Corinthians 13:5. The problem being that within the organization, this is not allowed to the individual witness, but rather the society. It is "wait on Jehovah" to correct the GB, but that is the problem of following men instead of God. God's word does not change, it is men and their interpretation that changes. Those that follow men and end up dying before the change takes place, what happens to them? are they posthumously acquitted and no longer disfellowshipped? wouldn't make much difference then though. 

In the end, I think we are more in agreement than not. I just can't see how anyone or any group can proclaim a biblical teaching that is not one and hold it so dear when it is the thoughts of men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I agree, however is this for the individual witness or are they to "wait on Jehovah"? You see this comment IS biblical from both Acts 17:11 and 2 Corinthians 13:5. The problem being that within the organization, this is not allowed to the individual witness, but rather the society. It is "wait on Jehovah" to correct the GB, but that is the problem of following men instead of God. God's word does not change, it is men and their interpretation that changes. Those that follow men and end up dying before the change takes place, what happens to them? are they posthumously acquitted and no longer disfellowshipped? wouldn't make much difference then though. 

In the end, I think we are more in agreement than not. I just can't see how anyone or any group can proclaim a biblical teaching that is not one and hold it so dear when it is the thoughts of men.

Thanks for your response.

As individuals, we have a responsibility to wait on Jehovah, but not to wait on the organization, if they are at odds. Fortunately this should rarely be a problem. We are under a dual obligation to serve Jehovah but also to follow those who are taking the lead among us. We (many of us, anyway) should also be reaching out for the office of overseer so that we can also take the lead, too.

I think you might not realize just how fast things will keep changing, especially now that the Internet is available and 20 million people have paid attention to us through participation, Bible study, meeting attendance, etc. And don't think that the Governing Body aren't having trouble keeping up with "Jehovah's Chariot" themselves. In a practical sense, changes happen faster when more questions come in, and more of those questions can't be answered by "correspondence," "service," "legal," and "public relations" departments. More doctrinal changes have happened in the last 10 years than have happened since 1929 in this Organization. I might be biased but I think the last decade of changes actually makes much more sense than the previous versions of the changed teachings. Jehovah's Chariot speeds because there are now millions more people who might ask a difficult question.

Also, I think you know that Jehovah is the ultimate Judge, and those who were hurt and stumbled will be cared for with whatever extra it may take for Jehovah to satisfy the desire of every living thing. Jehovah has an eternity to make up for some injustices that will seem like a forgotten second of time, an eternity from now. When he wipes out every tear from our eyes, and pain, that would have to mean every kind of pain, even those that we inflicted upon each other in this life. Faith drives our motivation to do what is right toward each other, but as imperfect people, we sometimes do wrong. Jehovah looks at the motivation, and can undo the harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
41 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

More doctrinal changes have happened in the last 10 years than have happened since 1929 in this Organization.

 

and here is the point I was trying to make as well. God's word does not change, it is man's interpretation that does. It is man's law, which is not sanctioned by God, that is condemning. When one allows men to rule and reign over their lives as if God Himself dictated it, then you have these problems of constant changing doctrines and man made rules to follow. This really is the core of the problem. There is a vast difference between those who lead and those who impose. A leader has gained respect by not an iron fist of rules and regulations, but rather a gentle and humble approach and willingness to come along side and work with you. Those who impose their belief are dictators, and this seldom leads to genuine respect, but rather conformity. It is take what we give and like it. One must conform or find themselves on the outside, outside of what? The box they allowed themselves to be put in. 

 

I truly appreciate this discussion and your input. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,381

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.