Comments on: Oh Christmas tree — condemned in Scripture?

By: E. Stephen Burnett

E. Stephen Burnett — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:15:54 +0000

Thanks for that, Jerico’s. Now, would you like to interact with the already-established refutation of that view? I’ve already shown that Jeremiah 10 has nothing to do with Christmas trees or Christmas traditions.

If you believe that people are held guilty for doing something that other people used for sin, then what on earth are you doing using a computer? Other people use the computer for gambling, adultery, and pornography. How dare you indulge in this practice with the history that it’s had. Internet use is just porn-seeking with “a different coat.”

I do not agree with that notion at all! But to be consistent, you should.

By: Jerico's flower

Jerico's flower — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:38:11 +0000

The christmas tradition and custom is the work of CUNNING man.
Read with your eyes open or you will be SLING out of the land with your customs and traditions.
Jeremiah 10.
Christmas is the Saturnalia with a different coat,you worship satan with Christ name.
Go read what debauchery was done during the Saturnalia festival.
How can you beleive in the Bible and continue with such disgusting practice.
Indeed the Lord stated “they worship me with their lips but their heart is far from me”.
“They will say Lord we have preached in your name and healed and casted out devils in your name…” and the Lord will say “Depart from me I know you not”. There will be crying and knashing of teeth.

By: YeHaveHeard — Does Jeremiah condemn Christmas trees?

YeHaveHeard — Does Jeremiah condemn Christmas trees? — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:08:01 +0000

[...] An excerpt from last year — read the complete column here. [...]

By: Hug a Christmas tree, for God’s sake! « Ye Have Heard

Hug a Christmas tree, for God’s sake! « Ye Have Heard — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:14:09 +0000

[...] now as I was then, while lecturing my obnoxious self. Some of what I would say would be based on this week’s Wednesday column, about a Bible passage being misused about Christmas [...]

By: E. Stephen Burnett

E. Stephen Burnett — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:44:58 +0000

In that case, I think Christmas trees and other decorations would fall neatly into the category of Meat Sacrificed to Idols. Christians who have no special convictions to avoid those should not rub it in to those with “weaker” consciences, who would automatically see pagan connotations if, say, a tree or Advent wreath were in a church sanctuary.

This is one reason why church denominations can be good. Some Christians may really not be comfortable with some traditions (say, certain art forms in worship), and others who may be at the stage (maturity?) of benefiting from these could best be together.
However, I submit that a lot of “that offends me” notions that some Christians come up with aren’t the same as “that tempts me.” As Randy Alcorn says in his excellent article, A Stumbling Block: What it is and What it isn’t, a woman offended by a man with a beard can’t really claim a “weaker brother (or sister)” principle because she would not be tempted to grow a beard. Alcorn notes, about some “professional weaker brothers”:

Instead of saying “you shouldn’t do that because it’s a stumbling block to me,” these “professional weaker brothers” should engage in healthy biblical dialogue concerning the subject and learn to accept those things that are no more than differences in taste. They should not pull out “stumbling block” as a trump card that means “you can’t exercise Christian liberty in any area I’m uncomfortable with.” In fact, those who are biblically informed enough to even be familiar with the term stumbling block should be mature enough not to trip over one.

By: P. F. Pugh

P. F. Pugh — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:29:45 +0000

Separate issue Stephen: what about Christmas trees in church? There we have a problem, especially for those who subscribe to the regulative principle (whatever isn’t prescribed by Scripture for worship is forbidden in worship). That’s the major objection to advent/Christmas traditions in general.

By: Amy Walters

Amy Walters — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:53:34 +0000

I like this article, and I am glad that you drew the distinction between vanity and sin. If vanity is equated with sin then you have a big problem with Ecclesiastes in which the writer calls everything vanity. I am also glad that you brought up the point that we cannot blame sin on an object such as a Christmas tree. Too often today we want to blame our sin on people who cannot be responsible for another’s actions, and we want to blame our sin on objects, which clearly cannot be evil or good. I think alot of people are living their lives in a miserable state because they see some objects as good and some as evil. They spend alot of precious time ridding theirselves of anything that they think is evil and gathering to themselves what they deem as good. The real issue is, most of the time if not all of the time, internal not external.