Oh Pagan Tree

[webdog]

Ours is plastic - does that mean we're fake pagans?

Ours is plastic and 9'...we are REAL fake pagans! We even have small plastic ones throughout our home! Does this mean I am the most righteous one in this thread?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I love academia. I consider this information cool. But then I'm a nerd.

GE:
I begin to think I do have a sense of humour.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This topic makes me think of king Hezekaiah who destroyed the golden serpent Moses made because the people worshipped it.
Come on, Christians, we are soldiers of Christ. Christ-mass trees and many other things taken for granted and harmless deep down with adults are idolatry we were brought up with and wouldn't part with for the life of us. I mean, am I to storm into my children's houses and knock down those todler's and youngsters' joy? - innocent joy! Or live in disharmony with my wife for ever after because I took off her little coloured lights from the doorway, or refused to help her put them up?

May Christ be merciful upon me, is all I can say, upon me this sinner I am!
I tell you something, my wife is no idolator!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE:
I begin to think I do have a sense of humour.

Are you mocking me? You know what Palatka51 says about that!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This topic makes me think of king Hezekaiah who destroyed the golden serpent Moses made because the people worshipped it.
Come on, Christians, we are soldiers of Christ. Christ-mass trees and many other things taken for granted and harmless deep down with adults are idolatry we were brought up with and wouldn't part with for the life of us. I mean, am I to storm into my children's houses and knock down those todler's and youngsters' joy? - innocent joy! Or live in disharmony with my wife for ever after because I took off her little coloured lights from the doorway, or refused to help her put them up?

May Christ be merciful upon me, is all I can say, upon me this sinner I am!
I tell you something, my wife is no idolator!

How would you then take the principle of this passage in context of christmas?

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Are you mocking me? You know what Palatka51 says about that!

GE:
I am laughing at myself - so i really must have a sense of humour!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

How would you then take the principle of this passage in context of christmas?

GE:
Of the Christians I have associated with all my life, I have not seen one taking offence at a christmass tree or resign their faith because of it.
No wait, I once saw one who by the goodwill of another church worshipped in their church building, remove the careful christmass preparations before they would proceed with their own service.
That is what one calls legalism. see the new thread. i have great sorrow on behalf of such people.

 

[ray Marshall]

KJV: For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

NASB: For the customs of the peoples are (A)delusion;
Because (B)it is wood cut from the forest,
The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool.

ESV: for the customs of the peoples are vanity.[a](B) A tree from the forest is cut down
and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman.


It does not take a craftsman to cut down a tree. The word in the KJV that is translated "workman" doesn't give it the sense of the expertness of the worker, but the Hebrew word is "charash" which means a skilled person. The tree cut down from the forest would not be a "work" because what is cutting a tree? It's just something that the children could have done. Yet we see that the tree was the work of a skilled worker, cut with an axe. That certainly is more than just cutting an evergreen from the forest.

Read Isaiah 44:9-28 to read more about the same subject.

well I see that ISIAH is something to study deeply for the workmen mentioned there does use a cedar and fashion it unto something that I had read but not studied. I have read the bible through 3 times and when you are reading to accomplish somethings with knowledge, you don't take the time to do a good study. It's just that you won't to accomplish reading from GENESIS to REVELATIONS during maybe the winter months when you have more time on your hands. Thanks

 

[abcgrad94]

December is not the issue. The issue is whether it is appropriate to have a tree. I have shown that it does not matter. I can tell that you are responding to my posts wrong. It is not, nor has it ever been my intent, to accuse anyone of idolatry. I have posted why antiaging has his conviction in relation to scripture and that it would not be appropriate to mock that. :BangHead: Mocking Pope TV and a live forever vitamin regimen is just plain hilarious. :laugh:

If in any case anyone has taken my posts as judgmental opinions on the idolatry of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ then I humbly seek your forgiveness. However, For speaking against mockery of one that has a biblical basis for conviction I do not repent.

Mel

I think part of the "mocking" as you call it is because some of us just like to tease the trolls. When someone posts really strange stuff, I guess it's just natural to assume they are trolling.

You are right, though, Mel. If someone does seriously believe far-fetched nonsense, perhaps we should respond in love as that person could have a serious mental issue.

But. . .Ahem. . .I'm still trying not to laugh about the spies in the TV. . .

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think part of the "mocking" as you call it is because some of us just like to tease the trolls. When someone posts really strange stuff, I guess it's just natural to assume they are trolling.

You are right, though, Mel. If someone does seriously believe far-fetched nonsense, perhaps we should respond in love as that person could have a serious mental issue.

But. . .Ahem. . .I'm still trying not to laugh about the spies in the TV. . .

You're still teasing. However, the spies in the TV have been there since 1984. I have it on a reliable source (George Orwell).

 

[tinytim]

Tsk, tsk... tsk...

Watch out, you will be called to task for making fun of someone's convictions.. although they are extrabiblical....

 

[DHK]

I think part of the "mocking" as you call it is because some of us just like to tease the trolls. When someone posts really strange stuff, I guess it's just natural to assume they are trolling.

You are right, though, Mel. If someone does seriously believe far-fetched nonsense, perhaps we should respond in love as that person could have a serious mental issue.

But. . .Ahem. . .I'm still trying not to laugh about the spies in the TV. . .

I took exception to the "really strange stuff" as you call it. I never read it, never heard of it, was totally unaware of it until it entered this thread. Some might consider that to be cross-posting, which is against the rules. It is not germane to this topic and should have never entered into this thread in the first place.

A man may preach against adultery because it is wrong.
Another may say his preaching against adultery is wrong and need not to be listened to because he believes that TV is sin, or has some other odd belief. Now what does one have to do with the other. Tearing down the character of the poster or his other beliefs has nothing to do with the beliefs that he is posting (i.e., adultery is sin). That is what is happening here. It is not right, and it, in and of itself, is sin.
I say this to all who are involved.

 

[abcgrad94]

I took exception to the "really strange stuff" as you call it. I never read it, never heard of it, was totally unaware of it until it entered this thread. Some might consider that to be cross-posting, which is against the rules. It is not germane to this topic and should have never entered into this thread in the first place.

A man may preach against adultery because it is wrong.
Another may say his preaching against adultery is wrong and need not to be listened to because he believes that TV is sin, or has some other odd belief. Now what does one have to do with the other. Tearing down the character of the poster or his other beliefs has nothing to do with the beliefs that he is posting (i.e., adultery is sin). That is what is happening here. It is not right, and it, in and of itself, is sin.
I say this to all who are involved.

What??? I am not trying to tear down ANYONE'S character at all, and I am sorry if anything I said appeared that way. I was NOT the first to bring up what was posted on another thread and I am not trying to cross post at all.

My point was that maybe we shouldn't poke fun at a weaker brother or sister, even though some of the opinions posted didn't make sense.

I will now bow out of this thread, as I feel I am being repremanded for something that I did not cause.

 

[Palatka51]

What??? I am not trying to tear down ANYONE'S character at all, and I am sorry if anything I said appeared that way. I was NOT the first to bring up what was posted on another thread and I am not trying to cross post at all.

My point was that maybe we shouldn't poke fun at a weaker brother or sister, even though some of the opinions posted didn't make sense.

I will now bow out of this thread, as I feel I am being repremanded for something that I did not cause.

abcgrad94,

Your comments are most welcome. DHK was speaking of another poster and that of mine when I mentioned the other threads. He is right in that I did engage in cross posting. For that I confess. However I, like you, feel that it is time to bow out as well. :wavey:

 

[Spinach]

My intent was to be a little light-hearted, not mock. I must come from a very different circle because we often joke light-heartedly about things----such as why a preacher should always wear a belt AND suspenders at the same time...

Eccl 4:9] Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
[Eccl 4:10] For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.

 

[antiaging]

Tsk, tsk... tsk...

Watch out, you will be called to task for making fun of someone's convictions.. although they are extrabiblical....

The Christmas tree is extrabiblical.
It has pagan roots from baal worship.
Baal worship is cited throughout the old testament as a false religion that led to both the downfall of the nations that God destroyed to give their land to Israel and later to the downfall of Israel itself when they worshipped baalim and ashteroth. [im is Hebrew masculine plural; oth is feminine plural. refering to the different names of the false gods, that the sun god baal took on and the different names that the queen of heaven took on in the different forms of baal worship in the different lands.
Astarte, Diana, Venus, Ishtar,--ashteroth
baal, baal berith, Zues, Chemosh, Milchom, Ra, Jupiter, --baalim

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
Deuteronomy 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

So, celebrating the birth of Christ, when God became a man, to redeem us, should have nothing to do with a pagan tradition of hanging things on trees and giving gifts, from babylonian baal worship.

12:31---thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God.---

Christmas trees are not serving God in any way in celebrating His birth.
It is a pagan tradition that originally started in the pagan baal worship in babylon which is an abominable religion in God's sight, as shown from the Old testament repeatedly.

If you think it is sinful then don't do it.
If you really don't consider it sinful then to you it is not a sin, if the bible does not call it a sin.
If you do consider it sinful, then to you it would be a sin, according to what it says in Paul's epistles about eating meat or things sacrificed to idols.

However, I think people that are christians should know the truth of where this originally comes from and decide for themselves if they want to have Christmas trees.
I think it is safe to say that it does not please God, although not really a sin if you don't consider it a sin.

As for me, I don't want anything to do with baal worship, in any form, and not in the form it is in now, disguised to look like something else.
See The Two babylons by Hislop.

The woman in Revelation 17, has a name mystery babylon...
And the woman is called that city that reigneth over the kings of the earth.
reigneth is present tense to the time of the writing.
Rome is the city that reigned over the kings of the Earth when John wrote that.
He is spiritually calling Rome by the name babylon, just like he spiritually called Jerusalem, where our Lord was crucified, Sodom and Egypt.

 

[Palatka51]

If you think it is sinful then don't do it.
If you really don't consider it sinful then to you it is not a sin, if the bible does not call it a sin.
If you do consider it sinful, then to you it would be a sin, according to what it says in Paul's epistles about eating meat or things sacrificed to idols.

However, I think people that are christians should know the truth of where this originally comes from and decide for themselves if they want to have Christmas trees.
I think it is safe to say that it does not please God, although not really a sin if you don't consider it a sin.

As for me, I don't want anything to do with baal worship, in any form, and not in the form it is in now, disguised to look like something else.

I concur. :type:

 

[Jim1999]

In Ireland, candles were placed in windows to keep the evil ones away. Do we eliminate the use of candles in this society?

As I understand it, the original tree was an oak tree. The original Christmas tree was an ash tree. Do we abolish all trees because some organization utilized a tree for some alien purpose?

Not me. I love all trees. Trees clean the air we breathe. I don't have a pagan thought in my head when I see a tree. I thank God that we still have trees.

I have never had a tree in the house for Christmas, but I admire those who do.

As the writer of old said, "God bless us everyone......" (Dickens)

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Martin]

It is against my better judgment that I jump head first into this awkward discussion. I have read through this thread and seen some amazing things. Sadly I never cease to be amazed at what some people believe.

I must warn ahead of time, this is going to be one of the strongest posts I have ever posted. So if you don't like hard talk, and tough truths, don't read this reply. You have been warned. :laugh:

A Christmas tree is not pagan, nor is it Christian, it is neutral. The tree talked about in Jeremiah 10:1-5 has no historical or Biblical connection to the modern practice of setting up Christmas trees. Therefore it is not correct to use that passage to argue against Christmas trees. That passage is dealing with idols that are worshipped. The Lord is telling his people not to worry about those idols because they can do nothing. There is only one God and He, and He alone, is God (Jer 10:6ff). Using that passage to argue against Christmas trees is a very good example of a historical, exegetical fallacy. People who use that passage have not considered the context of the verse or the historical situation that brought about the writing of that verse.

The Bible says that "one person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God" (Rom 14:5-6). We are not to judge someone for celebrating or not celebrating a day (holiday). Scripture is very clear on that matter. Paul said, "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand" (Rom 14:4). In another place Paul said that we should not allow anyone "to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" (Col 2:16). These are personal matters and have no sinful implications. A person who celebrates Christmas by thanking the Lord for His mercy, grace, and work, is doing nothing wrong. A person who, like the early American Puritans, does not celebrate Christmas because he/she believes that it would not be in agreement with their understanding is doing no wrong. A person who puts up a Christmas tree and decorates it to celebrate Christ's coming is doing nothing wrong. In the same way, a person who does not is doing nothing wrong. Scripture does not command us to celebrate Christ's birth, but there is nothing in Scripture that tells us not to. In some ways I believe the issue of Christmas and Christmas trees is simular to the situation with meat that Paul talks about in Romans 14:13-23 (etc).

Now, with that out of the way, I want to deal with some of the unhistorical and unBiblical remarks made by the poster antiaging.

The Christmas tree is extrabiblical.
It has pagan roots from baal worship.

==That is a perfect example of what I call the "origins fallacy". The "origins fallacy" assumes that because something had questionable roots (etc) or uses at one point that it must always be bad. That kind of thinking is clearly a fallacy. The modern practice of putting up Christmas trees has no historical connection to Roman festivals (etc). People who set up Christmas trees today are doing so to celebrate Christ's birth or to celebrate the season. Whatever their reasons may or may not be, there is no connection to pagan practices of the past. People do not worship their Christmas trees nor are Christmas trees, by themselves, considered religious symbols or worship (ie...idols). Today Christmas trees are little more than decoration to mark a period of celebration.

As for "baal worship", please show me the historical connection between Christmas trees and the false deity baal mentioned in the Old Testament. I know you can't since there is not a connection (direct or otherwise). Most likely you are simply parrotting something someone told you.

Baal worship is cited throughout the old testament as a false religion that led to both the downfall of the nations that God destroyed to give their land to Israel and later to the downfall of Israel itself when they worshipped baalim and ashteroth.

==Again, since Christmas trees are not items of worship your statement does not apply. You are misquoting and misapplying Scripture. You are wrongly dividing the Word of Truth. If you don't want to put up a Christmas tree that is fine, if you don't want to celebrate Christmas, that is fine. I respect your conscience and your right to make those choices. However I do not respect your judgmental and unBiblical statements against those who make a different choice than you on this matter. Simply put, you are going beyond Scripture.

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
Deuteronomy 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

So, celebrating the birth of Christ, when God became a man, to redeem us, should have nothing to do with a pagan tradition of hanging things on trees and giving gifts, from babylonian baal worship.

==Again you are guilty of a historical and exegetical fallacy. In the passages you quote the issue is worshipping pagan gods. The modern practice of decorating Christmas trees has nothing to do with worshipping false gods. Modern Christmas trees are nothing more than decoration to mark the season. As for "baal worship", it has no connection (historically or Biblically).

Since God gave the greatest gift, I don't see anything with the practice of giving gifts to loved ones to celebrate that greatest of gifts.

However, I think people that are christians should know the truth of where this originally comes from and decide for themselves if they want to have Christmas trees.
I think it is safe to say that it does not please God, although not really a sin if you don't consider it a sin.

==More of your origins fallacy. You have made no direct link between modern Christmas trees and baal worship.

 

[ccrobinson]

I started reading the thread, then I saw who posted the OP. No need to read any further. I also don't want to say too much in case the Catholics are now watching me through my computer monitor.