The atheists are correct. It's time for the Christians to get a reality check. christmas is just a roman catholicized version of the pagan celebration. We would have more credibility this time of the year in reaching the lost if we would abandon the partial truths and just stick with the unadulterated Gospel- a message that needs no season to be heard.
christmas was instituted by the RCs which they took from the saturnalia, pagan festivities. If you don't want to accept that, even though it's easy enough to check out, you cannot deny what "christmas" is to the RCs, nor can you deny that the early Christians in America did not celebrate it because of it's RC origins. To say that it's comparable to wearing ties is very poor reasoning. That there is no warrant for it wanes in comparison to the grave error of "christianizing" it. Witches and demons laugh at us. You should be quite comfortable in this society as it spirals even further downward where most all things are "subjective" and absolutes are rejected. "christmas" is indeed a very appropriate judgment on those of us who lean towards compromise to satisfy our own desires. Using the name of God in vain and trite expressions is no small matter.
So now we're being told that Christians celebrated "christmas" before the Roman Catholics coined the term "christmas". Oddly enough, the earlier Christians wouldn't have anything to do with the "pope's massing day" and if the Roman Catholics had not instituted it, we would not be partaking today. That's a fact, historically, as well. The crux of the problem is "christmas" like the rainbow is one of those "subjective" subjects. Christians want to defend going along with "christmas" because of what it means to them. The sodomites "hijacked" the rainbow. Therein lies the problem. christmas is a roman catholic invention and the rainbow is still representative of God's promise. Christians need to decide if they will be like the sodomites and use that which means something entirely different for the RCs and attach their own subjective ideals to it or leave it alone. Bottom line is while Christians may have liberty to "eat of that which is sacrificed to false gods", they are not at liberty to attach Christ to it to "christianize" it like Aaron did with the golden calf. Saying "merry christmas" is an idle expression. We do not take His name in vain and we do not wish godspeed to just anyone even if we think that the expression is "good".
Esteeming a day does not include man made holy ones and definitely not in the manner of partial truth. 1miss2- One walking down the street seeing a tree in houses would accurately guess that they belong to Roman Catholics,witches,heathens or compromising Christians though. Ultimately, we would disagree on what the Bible says is acceptable worship. Why it's hard to get the partial lie of it is beyond reason. Spirit and truth. period. It's a scary time to live in. Everything is getting under the control of mainstream media and there is becoming a finer and finer line of distinction between the pagan and the Christian. Both groups pretty much do what they will do. Who were the examples of profane worship and unacceptable worship in the Bible for? Apparently, not us. ...which beckons the question...why would a lost world want to know our God? He can be "represented" in a tree, hung on a crucifix..perpetually or be stuck in a manger at the annual naivete scene.
Unprofitable, that Christ was incarnated is part of the Gospel..you really are crossing the line when you want to use the word "christmas" for His birth which the Apostles did not do. They didn't even celebrate "easter". They did glory in the cross and proclaimed his death as they were so told. The early Christians absolutely did not celebrate "christmas". Someone could be fined for partaking of the heathen feasting and pope's massing day. Again...no one can make up a holy day. One only has liberty as to which day they care to set apart to worship but,obviously, no one has the authority to institute a holy day that God has not warranted. At the very least, it's a lie as far as the date. We are to worship in spirit and truth, not partial truth. Partial truth is a lie and even the lost people know that much...which,ultimately,does to the One who is supposed to be honored. Of course, the lost people who would be drawn to this would be those who like a more buffet kind of Christianity. It just matters how one feels or desires...as long they mean well.
...which begs the question...why didn't the apostles ever celebrate it? Why didn't the Christians before it was instituted by Rome? christmas is not a holy day. God did not authorize it or warrant it and man, least of all, the vatican, has the right or authority to set a holy day. Sola Scriptura... vain tradition is of no merit. The conversation continues because it is never resolved. People think they have liberty where they do not. The answer is clear when one looks in the Bible. We do not have the liberty to fuse the profane with that which is holy even if it is in the right "spirit"...which, by the way, is a "magical one" according to a local Pastor...this was sad to hear but he is caught up in it and it is true..it is a "magical one". This is syncretism. Hark! the herald angels aren't singing "Glory to the new born King!"..they are adoring the One who came to bring a sword and not peace.
Commercialism and deception go hand in hand. Do Christians really think that people are most receptive to hearing because of a so called "holy day" instituted by the Roman Catholics? What in the world do we do then the rest of the year? Those pointing people to the truth without the help of a "christmas" tree to do it, sticking with the whole truth is never in vain. Maybe Christians could try to dump this RC high holy day and just be straight with people. Lost people do know or can easily find out where "christmas" comes from, especially if they have any connection with Roman Catholicism. This is the one time of the year that Christians actually become Roman Catholic and worldly in their vain traditions,sadly, dragging Christ through it. The date does matter and if you think that it's immaterial, consider that you have attached God to that which was meant for other gods and still is. It's all about the idols laid under the tree in the name of Christ. Really? Syncretism anyone?
‚ÄúI will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.‚ÄĚ
There are many verses in the Bible that deal with pornography and the like. Even Job made a covenant with his eyes. Of course,this is a huge problem that gets little attention. It is no wonder that many men do not want to marry or have normal relationships. It's also no wonder that there is a big market for male enhancement products. People who get bound up in porn have a much more difficult time functioning properly.
It's easy when one goes straight to the source to make a case. When asked what he saw when looking into the eyes of "pope" benedict, Bush stated that he saw "God". Kavanaugh,a proud Jesuit,of course, cited his trip with Bush to see the pope as a high point. And the present faux pa has commended Bush to the Lord.
What is no secret and perhaps more disturbing, Neil, is that GHW was very tight with the vatican. Can someone be a Christian and embrace Rome and its faux pas? ... only in extreme ignorance The present faux pa has "commended" Bush to the Lord. Sadly, he thinks that it is in his power to do such. Lord help the Roman Catholics come out of this deception.
Unprofitable, I know no one who needs alcohol for medicinal purposes and I certainly don't know of any who drinks alcohol to that end. Drugs and alcohol both impair ones judgment and sobriety. Food and exercise do not. ...no where in the Bible does it say that the wine at Passover was alcohol. It could just as easily have been, and more likely than not, juice. Pastor Andy... who alcohol was for:
Proverbs 31: 6-8
6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
8 Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.
Not a good group...those appointed to destruction or dying...of course,I believe there are anesthetics for the sick group today. Curious how people can stand the taste of the wine at your communion. It would make me want to gag...and then they have alcohol on their breath coming from church. ..could be a big draw for many, I suppose. RE: communion ‚ÄúI am the bread of life‚ÄĚ and ‚ÄúIt is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life‚ÄĚ the physical wafer and cup are very secondary we feed on Him..His Word because of His new c
Freemasons are ecumenical and have a "worshipful master" to which they bow. A Christian freemason is an oxymoron. Jim, I am not interested in who better qualified for the Presidential office. God sets up leaders and we get what we deserve. Those who think they have power are deceived. God merely uses them to accomplish His plans.
Hardly. It's only hypocritical to try to address a brother who is in sin if we are in the same kind of sin. We are to approach our brothers in Christ who are in sin. There are probably not many churches that do this any more but we are to exercise church discipline. Otherwise, as is the "norm" now...which is probably just judgment on the church...all kinds of sexual perversion goes and is embraced. ...probably judgment on the church for not addressing other sexual sin.
Unprofitable, One may judge sin if they are not guilty of the same sin...i.e. removing the plank from one eye... Someone who drinks alcohol has a beam in their eye if they try to take the speck out of another who uses toxins. After the plank is removed from their eye, then they are in a position to address another's sin. It's about not being a hypocrite. It's not an issue of being perfectly sinless.