The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Brainwashed

[zerinus]

Thanks for the reply. I guess what I see is the significant qualifier of “all” in all power, glory, dominion, knowledge. Even more specifically all power. This seems to me to encourage belief in having the power to create a world the same as God could.

That is basically the same concept as the Pauline doctrine of becoming “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ” (Romans 18:17; Galatians 4:7). Jesus has all that the Father has (John 17:10). So to become “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ” is to have all that they have.

Where did this idea of creating a world to populate with spirit children come from? I mean, is this an idea that wormed its way into being taught by Mormons even though it isn’t taught that way objectively from Mormon doctrine? Now that I think about it I think it was me who brought up this concept to a couple Mormon missionaries so it is not them telling me therefore I must of picked it up somewhere outside the Mormon teachings from Mormons. However I distinctly remember them telling me that that was what they, those two Mormon missionaries, believed. So the idea had to come from inside Mormonism as well, at least at that time.

The idea did originate from inside Mormonism. I haven’t done research into it to discover who brought it up first. But just because it originated from inside Mormonism, it does not make it official Mormon doctrine. You, however, probably picked it up from anti-Mormon stuff on the Internet rather than from talking to Mormons.

 

[ricko]

I’m not absolutely certain, but it would seem that if all the apostles and prophet were killed, that the keys would be lost and would need to be restored again through heavenly aid.

Then that would indicate that Jesus would be shortsighted and of course that is not the case. The original Apostles passed away but the Church did not as it was the intention of Christ that it would endure until the end of the world. Why establish a church only to have it disappear for 1800 years? The Apostles passed on their authority as proof that the Church continued. However since the original Apostles passed away so did the ability of healings and raising the dead. If the Mormon apostles were actually apostles this abiblity would continue to this day. I have never seen a Mormon apostle raise anyone from the dead in 200 years.

Maybe I didn’t word that well. Not ALL Christians were killed, but many. They were given the choice to either deny Christ or be killed. So many of the best ones were killed. One Roman Emperor (I’ll find his name) bragged that he “exterminated” all the Christians.

Which didn’t happen.

Christian weren’t killed for refusing to worship the pagan god. They were killed for being Christian. Roman Emperors like Nero and Diocletian were the worst when it came to killing Christians. From 100 AD to 300 AD, many practices within the Christian churches had already evolved. It is said the Jews and Pagans put a lot of pressure on the Christians. It’s actually kind of like today with diversity and multiculturalism. When you try to stand up for your values and beliefs you’re called intollerant. The Christians had the same problems. People in power tried to appease everyone. Plus the Roman government had much control. For example, the Christian resurrection, the Jewish Passover and the Pagan Feast of Eostre the goddess of fertility all fell in the spring around April. We see a combining of elements to form what is now Easter with bunnies and eggs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eostre

Christian Easter has nothing to do with bunnies and eggs. I have never seen nor have heard of any such activity in any Christian Church. The bunnies and eggs that seem to bother you have nothing either to do with any pagan ritual no more than wearing a “pagan” wedding band. I have never seen any pagan activity associated with a Easter egg hunt, have you?

 

[Stephen168]

Place: The earth (it was a world-wide apostasy). Even in the lands of America (see Book of Mormon) by 421 AD Mormon dies and his son Moroni buries the ancient record. Their people have a massive war killing almost all the Nephites leaving only Lamanites (American Indians).

Not specific enough and the Book of Mormon is fiction.

Date: ??? I don’t know if the Great Apostasy happened on a particular date ……………… we don’t really know.

Because it is not a historical event.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not absolutely certain, but it would seem that if all the apostles and prophet were killed, that the keys would be lost and would need to be restored again through heavenly aid.

There were only 12 apostles in the Bible. When Judas Iscariot was removed, he was replaced by Matthias. You may be thinking of the quorum of the seventy including Steven, Philip, etc

During Christ’s ministry, he taught his disciple all they needed to know for salvation. Many of his disciples were called Apostles. The term ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon (the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot. Christ sent the Twelve (Matthew 10:5). Christ selected 70 more and they were sent (Luke 10:1). The Apostle James, the Righteous was an apostle but not one of the twelve (Gal 1:19). Mark and Luke the Evangelists are referred to as Apostles. Paul and Barnabas were called Apostles (Acts 14:14). Barnabas was taught by the Twelve and was with Paul on his first journey. These Apostles are the witnesses and recorders of Christ’s earthly ministry. Most were witnesses to his resurrection.

Just as sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep; all the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

The only consistent meaning to being called ‘Apostle’ seems to be an Evangelist who was taught by Christ or The Twelve. The Twelve would pass from the earth by design. The title of Apostle would pass from the earth because The Twelve was not here to commission them. When Eusebius (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324) refers to an Apostle being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as Apostles. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops.

Eusebius:

For by her activity the machinations of her foes were promptly shown up and extinguished, though one after another heresies were invented, the earlier ones constantly passing away and disappearing, in different ways at different times, into forms of every shape and character. But the splendor of the Catholic and one true Church, always remaining the same and unchanged, grew steadily in greatness and strength.

 

[Answersplease]

Let me give you some clues on how to tell good from evil:
Righteousness will always try to build up, while evil will always tear down.

Jesus The Christ over turned the tables in the Temple, and drove the moneychangers out of the Temple with a whip of cords.

Mark 11:15
They came to Jerusalem, and on entering the temple area he began to drive out those selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.

John 2:15
He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables,

Righteousness will build faith, while evil will cast doubt.
Righteousness will show love and respect, while evil will throw railing and hateful accusations.

Jesus The Christ called the Pharisees “blind”, “whitewashed tombs”, and “filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.”

Matthew 23:26
Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.

Matthew 23:27
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth.

Matthew 23:28
Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.

Righteousness will stand on obedience and faith, while evil will in weakness always ask for proof or a sign.

The Original Apostle Thomas, wanted proof that Jesus The Christ was alive again,
and wanted to place his fingers in Jesus The Christ’s wounds.

John 20:25
So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

Righteousness will have peace and happiness, while evil will never be satisified.

Jesus The Christ did not come to bring peace, He came to bring DIVISION, good versus evil.

Luke 12:51
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

Luke 12:52
From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three;

Righteousness will seek the pure truth, while evil will be full of falsehoods.

Your “milk before meat” are “lies of omission”.

---

You seem to say you are better than Jesus The Christ.
But then you have Joseph Smith and all you latter day prophets and apostles to be your example don’t you.

It’s allways the same, if they can’t give a good answer, they go for the personal attack.

I testify to you that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles can perform miracles and healings as well as ALL worthy men who hold the priesthood in our day. I have had personal experiences myself that are sacred to me, however, I would never cast my pearls before swine.

How convenient that you hide your miracles from the news reporters and the world, if the prophets and apostles are true then they FEAR NOTHING that is not of the TRUE GOD.
The prophets and apostles would boldly proclaim the miracles.

The Original Apostles were willing to face pagans in order to boldly proclaim the Gospel and perform miracles whenever they felt the need, they did NOT HIDE their MIRACLES.

Saint Paul was beaten up many times, he was shipwrecked, and he was even stoned and left for dead. Guess what he did after he was stoned and left for dead? He got up and went BACK to PREACH some more!

Keep your mormon pearls, I’ll stick with The Holy Bible and Jesus The Christ and the rest of The Holy Trinity.

 

[dianaiad]

Christian Easter has nothing to do with bunnies and eggs. I have never seen nor have heard of any such activity in any Christian Church. The bunnies and eggs that seem to bother you have nothing either to do with any pagan ritual no more than wearing a “pagan” wedding band. I have never seen any pagan activity associated with a Easter egg hunt, have you?

Simply because Christians have co-opted the symbols, and (even though they use them at the same time of year and have them mean very much the same thing; that is, rebirth and fertility and spring) have assigned them Christian interpretations, it does not mean that those symbols (bunnies and eggs…and yes, the wedding band, and Christmas trees and ornaments upon them, and gift giving, and evergreens and holly and ivy and…) were not originally pagan in origin.

Kidnapping those symbols and converting them to Christianity was one of the best ideas Christians had…and was extremely successful. Look at how y’all bridle at the very thought that they could once have had a different meaning!

 

[ricko]

Simply because Christians have co-opted the symbols, and (even though they use them at the same time of year and have them mean very much the same thing; that is, rebirth and fertility and spring) have assigned them Christian interpretations, it does not mean that those symbols (bunnies and eggs…and yes, the wedding band, and Christmas trees and ornaments upon them, and gift giving, and evergreens and holly and ivy and…) were not originally pagan in origin.

Kidnapping those symbols and converting them to Christianity was one of the best ideas Christians had…and was extremely successful. Look at how y’all bridle at the very thought that they could once have had a different meaning!

I agree with your statement except for the “kidnapping” part. Christians do NOT use the bunny and eggs bit. They are not part of our religious ceremony. Those activities and some others have been adopted into our Society just like many other ancient things. Let he who is wise understand that words and other things have different meanings. If it once was pagan but is pagan no longer, what’s the problem? Should we be paranoid to the point of changing the names of the week and the stars because they were associated with pagan gods? I think not. It’s time to grow up.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree with your statement except for the “kidnapping” part. Christians do NOT use the bunny and eggs bit. They are not part of our religious ceremony. Those activities and some others have been adopted into our Society just like many other ancient things. Let he who is wise understand that words and other things have different meanings. If it once was pagan but is pagan no longer, what’s the problem? Should we be paranoid to the point of changing the names of the week and the stars because they were associated with pagan gods? I think not. It’s time to grow up.

1. Ricko, if Christians wake up on Easter morning and put on brand new hats/clothing to wear to church, and have an Easter basket with colored eggs and candy for their children, and if they have youth events that include Easter egg hunts, and all this is PART OF THE HOLIDAY, then they are part of the religious ceremony. It’s part of the Christian holiday because CHRISTIANS DO IT. It may not be part of the religious ceremony in CHURCH, but it is part of the religious holiday, and if the children ask, parents will explain the symbols using Christian words and analogies. The same thing goes for all the stuff that comes with Christmas.
2. “If it once was pagan but is pagan no longer, what’s the problem?” Is precisely my point. Symbols mean what the users want them to mean, no more and no less. My objection is not to using them, though there are quite a few Christians who don’t–and for that very reason; these symbols used to be pagan and they don’t want to be ‘contaminated’ (or something.) My objection in this thread was to a specific attitude of ‘head in the sand’ silliness–refusing to acknowledge that they ever did have another meaning; that they somehow showed up fresh from the mind of some Christian somewhere and had no other source. Both attitudes, it seems to me, are unrealistic and, frankly, silly.

There isn’t a symbol that man can come up with that hasn’t been used in another way, by another people, in another time.

I’m not certain if your command to ‘grow up’ was addressed to me; I hope not, since I happen to agree with you.

 

[ricko]

No it wasn’t. Only to those who try and make them still pagan like the JWs.

I don’t believe that most people even know that Christmas trees, bunnies and the like were ever considered pagan at one time. I didn’t know until a few years ago because of my studies of the JWs. I have a friend who was a Catholic and fell into the JWs. One day I said, “Keith, how could a Christmas tree be pagan today when it wasn’t when you were growing up and you had one every year?”

 

[mjf001]

1. Ricko, if Christians wake up on Easter morning and put on brand new hats/clothing to wear to church, and have an Easter basket with colored eggs and candy for their children, and if they have youth events that include Easter egg hunts, and all this is PART OF THE HOLIDAY, then they are part of the religious ceremony. It’s part of the Christian holiday because CHRISTIANS DO IT. It may not be part of the religious ceremony in CHURCH, but it is part of the religious holiday, and if the children ask, parents will explain the symbols using Christian words and analogies. The same thing goes for all the stuff that comes with Christmas.
2. “If it once was pagan but is pagan no longer, what’s the problem?” Is precisely my point. Symbols mean what the users want them to mean, no more and no less. My objection is not to using them, though there are quite a few Christians who don’t–and for that very reason; these symbols used to be pagan and they don’t want to be ‘contaminated’ (or something.) My objection in this thread was to a specific attitude of ‘head in the sand’ silliness–refusing to acknowledge that they ever did have another meaning; that they somehow showed up fresh from the mind of some Christian somewhere and had no other source. Both attitudes, it seems to me, are unrealistic and, frankly, silly.

There isn’t a symbol that man can come up with that hasn’t been used in another way, by another people, in another time.

I’m not certain if your command to ‘grow up’ was addressed to me; I hope not, since I happen to agree with you.

I disagree with point 1. The only thing that is part of the Easter ceremony, is the vigil Mass on Saturday night and the Masses on Sunday. If people want to participate in the more “secular” traditions of the Easter holiday, that has no bearing on the worship which takes place in Church on Easter.

The Cross is only important because of who Christ is. If he was not of divine origin, if he had not risen from the dead, he would just be another of the countless victims the Romans executed on the Cross. Fact is, Christ is divine. He is the only begotten Son of God, the second person in the Trinity. He did rise from the dead. His victory, is what gives meaning to the cross and changes it from a symbol of death, to life.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[dianaiad]

No it wasn’t. Only to those who try and make them still pagan like the JWs.

I don’t believe that most people even know that Christmas trees, bunnies and the like were ever considered pagan at one time. I didn’t know until a few years ago because of my studies of the JWs. I have a friend who was a Catholic and fell into the JWs. One day I said, “Keith, how could a Christmas tree be pagan today when it wasn’t when you were growing up and you had one every year?”

Oddly enough, I know very few people who are not aware of the pagan origins of most Christian symbols. Perhaps not the precise origins of each one, but that they were almost all adopted from earlier belief systems? Most people I know are aware of this.

They make a conscious decision about it; if it bothers them, they don’t use 'em. If it doesn’t, they do.

 

[dianaiad]

I disagree with point 1. The only thing that is part of the Easter ceremony, is the vigil Mass on Saturday night and the Masses on Sunday. If people want to participate in the more “secular” traditions of the Easter holiday, that has no bearing on the worship which takes place in Church on Easter.

The Cross is only important because of who Christ is. If he was not of divine origin, if he had not risen from the dead, he would just be another of the countless victims the Romans executed on the Cross. Fact is, Christ is divine. He is the only begotten Son of God, the second person in the Trinity. He did rise from the dead. His victory, is what gives meaning to the cross and changes it from a symbol of death, to life.

In Christ,
Michael

Very compartmentalized of you, Michael. The fact is, there is nothing ‘secular’ about the symbols and activities that surround a religious holiday, if the people using them are thinking about the holiday as religious.

True, atheists are as likely to use them as the religious are, and assign their own symbolism to them–and that’s fine too.

As to the cross…it is a simple symbol, and has been used in almost every religion there has ever been. It was found in Egypt, Norse mythology, ancient American pottery and cave paintings, ancient celtic (pre-Christian) art, it is ubiquitous. Its meaning to you is precisely what you claim for it, because, m’friend, you claim it.

But you seem to be arguing that because it has one meaning for you, that it could never have had another meaning for anyone else. That’s—not wise. Doing that leads to grave misunderstanding when dealing with people who have different meanings for different symbols.

 

[mjf001]

Very compartmentalized of you, Michael. The fact is, there is nothing ‘secular’ about the symbols and activities that surround a religious holiday, if the people using them are thinking about the holiday as religious.

True, atheists are as likely to use them as the religious are, and assign their own symbolism to them–and that’s fine too.

As to the cross…it is a simple symbol, and has been used in almost every religion there has ever been. It was found in Egypt, Norse mythology, ancient American pottery and cave paintings, ancient celtic (pre-Christian) art, it is ubiquitous. Its meaning to you is precisely what you claim for it, because, m’friend, you claim it.

But you seem to be arguing that because it has one meaning for you, that it could never have had another meaning for anyone else. That’s—not wise. Doing that leads to grave misunderstanding when dealing with people who have different meanings for different symbols.

I’m talking about the Cross as a Christian symbol. Frankly, I have no interest in the meaning other groups place on their versions of the symbol, if indeed they are the same symbol, which I doubt.

As to your point about secular symbols, you’re the one who brought up the Easter bunny and Easter eggs. As far as I’m concerned these are secular traditions of Easter. I prefer to focus on the death and resurrection of Christ during Easter, and I prefer to focus on the Birth of Christ at Christmas. If, I use the secular trappings encouraged by cultural mores and traditions, (Easter eggs, Christmas Trees, Yule Logs, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny) that has no bearing on what I worship at Mass, or where my focus is during those times of year. My focus is on Jesus Christ. I prefer not to focus on the more secular celebrations of those holidays, particularly during Easter. So, my earlier point stands, as far as I’m concerned.

Peace be with you,
Michael

 

[dianaiad]

I’m talking about the Cross as a Christian symbol. Frankly, I have no interest in the meaning other groups place on their versions of the symbol, if indeed they are the same symbol, which I doubt.

The cross: two lines intersecting one another either centrally or offset, at any angle, perpendicularly or not. The ‘arms’ may or may not have ornaments that may or may not carry meaning in and of themselves. The symbol is just that. Could be an X, or a T, or a Y…or any form that involves lines crossing one another. A ‘cross.’

What differentiates one cross from another is the meaning that is given TO them by those who use them.

As to your point about secular symbols, you’re the one who brought up the Easter bunny and Easter eggs. As far as I’m concerned these are secular traditions of Easter. I prefer to focus on the death and resurrection of Christ during Easter, and I prefer to focus on the Birth of Christ at Christmas. If, I use the secular trappings encouraged by cultural mores and traditions, (Easter eggs, Christmas Trees, Yule Logs, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny) that has no bearing on what I worship at Mass, or where my focus is during those times of year. My focus is on Jesus Christ. I prefer not to focus on the more secular celebrations of those holidays, particularly during Easter. So, my earlier point stands, as far as I’m concerned.

Peace be with you,
Michael

Why do I get the feeling that either I"m not writing English, or you aren’t reading it? We are talking right past each other. Whoosh.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Hey Parker. Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back on the thread.

Hi, Skinny Jay,
I noticed your comment on the thread about people after they die, and see that you have deep thoughts.

I don’t know about deep as just straight across… I try to bring things to their full conclusion. If I believe x I should also believe *x’*s relationship with every other letter of the alphabet. I try not to compartmentalize my beliefs and look at interplay between each belief as well as the belief itself. Follow? I find this helps me greater understand teachings.

From my experience, Mormons don’t spend much time at all talking or thinking about the kinds of questions you brought up and the kind of lesson that Zaf quoted from. We just don’t know enough about all that and we will find out in due time. You would be familiar with the Savior’s parable where it ends with the phrase, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” (Matthew 25:21, 23) What does that mean to you?

Todays Gospel was the story of the 5loafs and 2fish feeding the 5k. I associate the story of the talents with this story. The reason is because I see, in both, that with even such a small amount of food/faith, God takes that and multiplies it. Being faithful over the little allotted to us brings us closer to God because all we do should be for Him. I see the joy of the Lord as His children accepting Him, not just accepting a little but with everything, our very lives.

I do know that the creative process is a joyful process, and watching children grow and develop is also a joyful process. I have not an inkling of desire to be “worshiped” or “adored”, but I do want to follow Christ and become as much as possible like Him, because He taught that principle clearly (He wants me to) and so did John in the book of Revelation. I think I should trust those promises, even though I don’t understand how they are possible other than the knowledge that Christ has all power given to Him and His grace is truly a power to bring us to God and to bring the promise of becoming like Him in the eternities to come.

Ok I see where you coming from. However for me it is a big emphasis on the like Him and not actually Him. The line gets fuzzy when I look at Mormon teachings.

I suggest you re-read all the passages in the book of Revelation that reveal the promises to “him that overcometh.” There are about six or seven distinct promises, and they are very specific and direct. I believe the Bible. I believe John wrote what he was told to write. I believe those promises, and I believe God wants us to believe them and have hope in Christ and trust Him and not doubt His power and grace.

I don’t doubt His power or His grace. I just doubt how me becoming all powerful is for His greater glory.

 

[mjf001]

The cross: two lines intersecting one another either centrally or offset, at any angle, perpendicularly or not. The ‘arms’ may or may not have ornaments that may or may not carry meaning in and of themselves. The symbol is just that. Could be an X, or a T, or a Y…or any form that involves lines crossing one another. A ‘cross.’

What differentiates one cross from another is the meaning that is given TO them by those who use them.

Why do I get the feeling that either I"m not writing English, or you aren’t reading it? We are talking right past each other. Whoosh.

What don’t you understand about my insistence that the Easter Bunny is not a part of death of Christ? I go to the Easter Triduum Masses every year. I usually go to the Easter vigil Mass and the Sunday Easter Mass. Not once have I heard the mention of the Easter bunny, or Easter baskets, or Easter Eggs during the Easter Masses. I have heard the Gospels concerning Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection during the whole week Starting on Palm Sunday and Ending Easter Sunday.

[SIGN] Originally Posted by dianaiad View Post

1. Ricko, if Christians wake up on Easter morning and put on brand new hats/clothing to wear to church, and have an Easter basket with colored eggs and candy for their children, and if they have youth events that include Easter egg hunts, and all this is PART OF THE HOLIDAY, then they are part of the religious ceremony. It’s part of the Christian holiday because CHRISTIANS DO IT. It may not be part of the religious ceremony in CHURCH, but it is part of the religious holiday, and if the children ask, parents will explain the symbols using Christian words and analogies. The same thing goes for all the stuff that comes with Christmas. [/SIGN]

The religious ceremony is the Mass. These things you mentioned above are not part of the “religious ceremony” because they’re not mentioned in the Mass. Not the Readings, not the responsorials, not the Gospel, nor the Homily In the Homily, my priest exclaimed, “Christ is Risen”. They certainly aren’t mention during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. They are part of the cultural (I used secular the first time, in this context I feel they’re interchangable) observances of the Easter Holiday, not part of the worship, which should only be focused on Jesus Christ (God).

Not only that, I’ve personally heard spiritual guidance to stay away from these cultural observances (or at least don’t emphasize them too much) of Easter and Christmas and keep the focus on Christ.

So, with this further clarification of my original objection, do you still not understand the point I was trying to make?

In Christ,
Michael

 

[SkinnyJay]

The cross: two lines intersecting one another either centrally or offset, at any angle, perpendicularly or not. The ‘arms’ may or may not have ornaments that may or may not carry meaning in and of themselves. The symbol is just that. Could be an X, or a T, or a Y…or any form that involves lines crossing one another. A ‘cross.’

What differentiates one cross from another is the meaning that is given TO them by those who use them.

Another aspect I find that differentiates the Christian cross from another is that it is not an X, nor a T, nor a Y…

You are specifically opening the definition of “cross” away from the Christian one to prove a point. I understand, but from what I understood of the posts the Christian Cross was the meaning intended not crosses in general.

I guess I just don’t know what we are arguing about.

 

[SkinnyJay]

I help out with my parishes youth group and every year they do a 33hour fast on the weekend of Easter. We would carry a life-size cross around town stopping at “stations” to pray and contemplate that “station of the cross”. Every year there is a Easter egg hunt in the park next door to the church and every year the kids walk by carrying their cross while the kids and parents in the park watch. Christians and Catholics can participate in such activities as egg hunts and what not because it is fun for the kids. It is a reason to treat kids to something fun. But it is equally emphasized about the importance of the “true” meaning of Easter.

I don’t see where giving free candy to kids and having them run around all excited is a bad thing.

 

[dianaiad]

Another aspect I find that differentiates the Christian cross from another is that it is not an X, nor a T, nor a Y…

You are specifically opening the definition of “cross” away from the Christian one to prove a point. I understand, but from what I understood of the posts the Christian Cross was the meaning intended not crosses in general.

I guess I just don’t know what we are arguing about.

Symbols.

to recap the debate as I see it…someone (I forget who) claimed that the symbols used by Christians, from the Cross to eggs to Easter baskets to holly, Ivy and Christmas trees, are purely Christian, have always BEEN Christian, and it is pretty much blasphemous to claim that they were ever used in any other context/religion.

That’s one viewpoint. Another is that because all these symbols did originate from pagan beliefs, that they should be utterly abandoned. Michael seems to have come to that conclusion, or is arguing for that.

My position is…yes, these symbols (including the cross) have been used in other religions for thousands of years. Christians took them, ‘baptized’ them, in a sense, and converted the meanings of them to Christian meanings, with Christian symbology and lore—and good for them. Symbols mean what the people who use them claim they mean.

…and the meanings of symbols change, sometimes drastically. If you don’t believe me, research the swastika. Now THERE is a symbol that has been around for millenia, too–as a symbol of peace, fertility and good will. Come the Nazis and…oops. I have a quilt that my great grandmother made, that I will never be able to display. She would have been utterly astounded if I could tell her why.

I could get all upset and insist that the swastika REALLY means peace, harmony and all good things, but let’s face it; it doesn’t. Not any more, and it would be truly asinine of me to insist upon it.

Just as it is asinine for Christians today to recoil from the Easter egg because a thousand years or so ago it meant something else.

 

[mjf001]

Symbols.

to recap the debate as I see it…someone (I forget who) claimed that the symbols used by Christians, from the Cross to eggs to Easter baskets to holly, Ivy and Christmas trees, are purely Christian, have always BEEN Christian, and it is pretty much blasphemous to claim that they were ever used in any other context/religion.

[SIGN]That’s one viewpoint. Another is that because all these symbols did originate from pagan beliefs, that they should be utterly abandoned. Michael seems to have come to that conclusion, or is arguing for that.[/SIGN]
That’s not what I’m saying. You said they were part of the ceremony. I even pasted you saying it in my last response. My argument isn’t that they should or should not be used. My argument isn’t whether they are a legitimate part of the holiday or not. These things make the holiday fun for the kids and the adults. However, our focus should be on God, while we’re having fun.
May argument, Diana, is that the trappings of the Holiday are not part of the ceremony. I even quoted that specific part of your statement. That is what I took issue with.

[SIGN]My position is…yes, these symbols (including the cross) have been used in other religions for thousands of years. Christians took them, ‘baptized’ them, in a sense, and converted the meanings of them to Christian meanings, with Christian symbology and lore—and good for them. Symbols mean what the people who use them claim they mean.

…and the meanings of symbols change, sometimes drastically. If you don’t believe me, research the swastika. Now THERE is a symbol that has been around for millenia, too–as a symbol of peace, fertility and good will. Come the Nazis and…oops. I have a quilt that my great grandmother made, that I will never be able to display. She would have been utterly astounded if I could tell her why. [/SIGN]

If you’re a Christian, the cross should have a specific meaning. I don’t particularly care the meanings other groups assign to their particular symbol. I think it’s important to make sure to emphasize the proper meaning of the Cross. Again, to put the attention where it belongs, on God.

[SIGN]I could get all upset and insist that the swastika REALLY means peace, harmony and all good things, but let’s face it; it doesn’t. Not any more, and it would be truly asinine of me to insist upon it.

Just as it is asinine for Christians today to recoil from the Easter egg because a thousand years or so ago it meant something else.

[/SIGN]

The meaning of the Swastika has forever changed because of the actions of an evil man. An Easter egg hunt, while fun, carries no Religious significance, as far as I can tell. It’s fun. It’s fun to watch my nieces and nephew have fun. But what significant does an Easter egg have outside of being fun? I don’t recognize it as a symbol of the holiday, but as a cultural expression of the holiday.

To reiterate, I’m not saying don’t go on Easter Egg Hunts, don’t decorate the christmas trees. I’m not saying they’re not fun. I believe they have there part. They are not; however, part of the ceremony.