|
Post by sharonw on Nov 6, 2011 19:56:17 GMT -5
The assumption is that the professing boy and his girlfriend who is attending meetings are. Sometimes we cause ourselves needless worry over things we don't know and that are not our business. But then, there is that verse that says to not company with any brother who is a fornicator. There seems to be two big problems in this story. First, the young people say they are not fornicators so the implication on this thread seems to indicate that they are not to be believed. That's a leap to condemnation. If you are going to go so far as condemn someone as a fornicator, at least get some proof. The other, more disturbing implication is that not only are they being told they are fornicating (which could be new information for them), but the demand to withhold Christian preaching from them. Jesus not only dined with and preached to publicans and sinners, but he actually gave the woman at the well the Living Waters. Oh yes, and he told his disciples that he didn't come to this world for those who were well, but for those who needed the Great Physician. And did I say he withheld stoning the adulterous woman? I think the workers are totally right to open the gospel meetings to the public. I think something here is taken for granted in regards to not company with fornicators. I thought the question was if the teenagers were welcome to gospel mtgs. Now though fornicators are welcome to gospel mtgs. does not mean that they are welcome to the Sun. morning mtgs. IMO...though I do not see the why of that either....but wasn't the case of not to company with fornicators more about the type of fornication...was this command not over the professing man who had his father's wife in sex? And even this was not heard of in the heathen nations? Put the fornicators away from them,etc. I take that story as Paul was getting onto the other Christians within that little church for being socialable and exceedingly so with the man and his stem-mama and not to sully the mtgs. where worship for the Christ was. It seems more to me about the Christians then the fornicating stepson...what they were doing...for even AFTER the man had to face up to his plight of his own making...Paul told them not to rejoice over the man's downfall. Attitudes and spirits of those not guilty of the sin is more the lesson, IMO then being the fornicator!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 6, 2011 20:01:38 GMT -5
Emy, I know what the bible teaches but frankly it seems that the church has lost its way regarding moral clarity. I suspect many don't know what fornication is, let alone take a moral stand on it. Does the church take a moral stand on fornication? How would we know? Has it ever featured as a mid-week study topic? I think that perhaps some misinterpretations have happened along the way for the fellowship and some are confused within the workership and that comes from the scripture about the man if he had kept his virgin then he could do that BUT IF he had gone over the right boundary then "let them marry they have not sinned." Seems this whole thing might have encouraged premarital sex amongst the religious zealots then it has just come on down with the next generations being confused about sex outside of marriage...some seem to have taken the thought that sex outside of marriage is okay between two consenting adults or something of that ilk. And that all comes from the premarital fornicating that ends up no sin after the couple actually marry.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2011 20:04:34 GMT -5
I wondered who would be the first person who would bring up Paul's declaration to not have company with fornicators. You win the prize Sharon! I've never been really good a making sound excuses for Paul's differences with Christian principles or Jesus' example, but I will give it a try. Paul is probably talking about people who actually promote the idea that fornicating is a good thing. Otherwise, he is talking about eliminating a whole lot of people, including those who fit Jesus' definition that we are guilty of all sins which we even imagine to commit. That eliminates me from all Christian fellowship.....how about you?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Nov 6, 2011 20:15:41 GMT -5
Let's put this another way:
If sexual immorality as sin was taught as doctrine, might it help to reduce:
Sexual immorality in the work?
Sexual immorality amongst elders and elder's wives?
Sexual immorality amongst our young people?
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 6, 2011 20:15:51 GMT -5
What a heart-rending story - this may help you through it all. To encourage you tom, I tell you to pick up your Bible and read about the Father calling Jesus “God” in Hebrews 1:8, as well as many passages all through the OT and NT that show both Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be God along with the Father. And simply accept it as God’s self description, not trying to understand since God is so far beyond human ability to understand, your natural inability in understanding three persons in one God should be a faith boost, not a draw-back. Then take a look at the gospel taught very clearly by Paul, spelled out very clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. And understand that Jesus died for our sins – in our place – the death-penalty we deserve for our sins was PAID IN FULL on our behalf by God the Son. And if you believe these core doctrines of the Bible, you will be a real Christian right where you are at the time you believe them. And as one of God’s children at that very point, the door is wide open for you to effectively pray for the safe delivery of your children, trusting that God has heard your prayer. And if God has heard your prayer you KNOW that you have your petitions. Remember, it is not God’s will that ANY perish. The problem with professing children is historical in the workers’ church, not something that has popped up in the last generation or two. Similar stories of professing teenagers could be written in droves right back to the founding years. And why this is so could well be related to the historical façade of the workers’ church, in which little or nothing biblical has ever been taught to adults, let alone children. Ever since 1903, when the workers decided to lie and bury the actual history in the façade of founding by Jesus Himself, the teachings from workers have been masked in such ambiguity that without that “spirit” they say is necessary in meetings, not one person could begin to understand workers’ messages. So, the beliefs have grown in confusion so much that most workers today cannot clearly tell anyone what they believe, let alone those they teach. And if the blind lead the blind, not only do both end up falling into the ditch, the children of the blind fall into the ditch right with, or in most cases, long before the adults do. If the beliefs that a child is taught by the parents and their ministers is fog, especially teenagers will explore everything under the sun attempting to gain some clarity of purpose in living. And largely because they have been taught that other churches are Satan’s churches, professing teenagers naturally avoid forming friendships with Christian teenagers from those other churches – and those left to choose from as friends are those who have no direction beyond whatever makes them “feel good” at any given moment. Unfortunately, this is the fruit of the workers’ church; always has been; and always will be unless biblical doctrines begin to be taught within it. The youth of other churches often show the same difficulties during teeage years. But where the teachings have been biblical, strays through teenage stages of development often never lose the essential beliefs even during departures in all directions. And Christian parents often struggle to trust God to draw their children safely through it all, but they do have just such a basis of trust in God. And many of them would tell you that their trust in the God of the Bible was the only comfort they had regarding their children during those teenage years.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 6, 2011 20:21:33 GMT -5
I have read the OP for the first time.
This is a common story. The role of the workers is not written down, so they get to pick and choose what the friends are supposed to do. They are forcing issues and decisions by using their authority in meeting. However, when things go wrong, YOU are at fault for listening to them....After all, they are not hired, paid, official and are just preachers of the gospel...not policemen..etc.
So if things go wrong, you are to say nothing about it or leave the meetings. That is the way that the workers preserve their image.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2011 20:32:20 GMT -5
Let's put this another way: If sexual immorality as sin was taught as doctrine might it help to reduce: Sexual immorality in the work? Sexual immorality amongst elders and elder's wives? Sexual immorality amongst our young people? Probably not much. The message is pretty vague. It would be more effective to preach against specific actions which cause damage to others. People will buy into that and change their behaviours if taught with clarity. People have to be "convinced of sin" before there is any likelihood of change. On the sexual front, CSA and adultery clearly cause a lot of damage, (the former causing huge damages), and preaching should focus on those areas. The Christian camp one of my kids attends is pretty good at convincing kids about abstinence and getting them to buy into it. That takes significant skill to do so. I'm not sure we have people in the meetings who could do that job. If you are a clumsy teacher of teens, you will encourage many of them to do the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 6, 2011 20:54:48 GMT -5
Let's put this another way: If sexual immorality as sin was taught as doctrine might it help to reduce: Sexual immorality in the work? Sexual immorality amongst elders and elder's wives? Sexual immorality amongst our young people? Probably not much. The message is pretty vague. It would be more effective to preach against specific actions which cause damage to others. People will buy into that and change their behaviours if taught with clarity. People have to be "convinced of sin" before there is any likelihood of change. On the sexual front, CSA and adultery clearly cause a lot of damage, (the former causing huge damages), and preaching should focus on those areas. The Christian camp one of my kids attends is pretty good at convincing kids about abstinence and getting them to buy into it. That takes significant skill to do so. I'm not sure we have people in the meetings who could do that job. If you are a clumsy teacher of teens, you will encourage many of them to do the opposite. Don't you think the workers do a good job in discouraging people from doing things that lead to immorality? Like: Wearing black stockings not having radio antennae on their cars not having computers not going to dances not playing sports not going to other churches not listening to other preachers not watching TV not wearing pants but skirts(women, of course) not wearing jewelry or makeup not meeting in church buildings not letting the ministry marry not getting paid for preaching All these rules point to a very high moral standards. I am not sure why you think the workers would be so clumsy at telling the kids to not have sex. After all, it is only a FEW of the workers that have ever had sex. They are living examples of secure, well adjusted adults who have not had sex.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 6, 2011 21:09:19 GMT -5
A "professsing" boy meets a girl and college and they move in together. Living together does not always mean the people have an intimate relationship.Everyone has their own moral compass. Sounds like you are assuming they are having sex. Some might call that judgmental. Well, we know they had sex at least once. No problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2011 21:10:51 GMT -5
I thought that according to you most of them were actively engaged in sex. That should qualify them for something......
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 6, 2011 21:12:50 GMT -5
The Christian camp one of my kids attends is pretty good at convincing kids about abstinence and getting them to buy into it. But in the long term these are the kids who end up with a higher teen pregnancy rate and more STDs. By age 20 the abstinence rate is just like the kids who did not join the abstinence movement.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Nov 6, 2011 21:13:00 GMT -5
On the sexual front, CSA and adultery clearly cause a lot of damage, (the former causing huge damages), and preaching should focus on those areas. Bring it on!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2011 21:27:17 GMT -5
The Christian camp one of my kids attends is pretty good at convincing kids about abstinence and getting them to buy into it. But in the long term these are the kids who end up with a higher teen pregnancy rate and more STDs. By age 20 the abstinence rate is just like the kids who did not join the abstinence movement. Source please. I'm interested.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Nov 6, 2011 21:32:53 GMT -5
Don't you think the workers do a good job in discouraging people from doing things that lead to immorality? Like: Wearing black stockings not having radio antennae on their cars not having computers not going to dances not playing sports not going to other churches not listening to other preachers not watching TV not wearing pants but skirts(women, of course) not wearing jewelry or makeup not meeting in church buildings not letting the ministry marry not getting paid for preaching This reminds me of the apostle Paul's words: Colossians 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:
21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?
22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.
23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 6, 2011 21:54:45 GMT -5
I thought that according to you most of them were actively engaged in sex. That should qualify them for something...... Yep. You nailed it. It qualifies them to teach immorality. It appears as though in tom's case, that is exactly what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 6, 2011 22:25:50 GMT -5
Apparently the workers only like being held responsible for their GOOD influence and do not take any credit if there is a BAD influence. A good influence is from the only God anointed ministry. Any bad individuals in the ministry or among the friends, no matter how connected to workers decisions, is simply just a few bad apples and has no bearing on the ministry or the group. Very convenient doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 6, 2011 23:53:15 GMT -5
I agree. Now please help me with this. What is your opinion of the following situation. A "professsing" boy meets a girl and college and they move in together. But, she goes to some gospel meetings so that is "good" Now they are living with his parents to save money. Oh, they have separate bedrooms. Why, the workers can't even stay there because there isn't room, but they are so glad to have her in the gospel meetings. We're all human and if I just moved into another bedroom form having lived with my sweetie, I would beat a path to his door. Workers are just so glad for the girl in the meetings. Question. Am I too judgemental, are they naive? What about the parents? Thanks for discussing this with me. You should be in my area, lauri. In my area, the workers helped a young couple move into their home. Then, the elder threw a huge pot-luck where there was a good deal of discussion about how wonderful it was to have this young couple acting as a newly-married couple. There wasn't even a promise ring or engagement ring on the girl's finger, and both of the young folks were professing. They did marry years later.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 7, 2011 0:04:28 GMT -5
I agree. Now please help me with this. What is your opinion of the following situation. A "professsing" boy meets a girl and college and they move in together. But, she goes to some gospel meetings so that is "good" Now they are living with his parents to save money. Oh, they have separate bedrooms. Why, the workers can't even stay there because there isn't room, but they are so glad to have her in the gospel meetings. We're all human and if I just moved into another bedroom form having lived with my sweetie, I would beat a path to his door. Workers are just so glad for the girl in the meetings. Question. Am I too judgemental, are they naive? What about the parents? Thanks for discussing this with me. You should be in my area, lauri. In my area, the workers helped a young couple move into their home. Then, the elder threw a huge pot-luck where there was a good deal of discussion about how wonderful it was to have this young couple acting as a newly-married couple. There wasn't even a promise ring or engagement ring on the girl's finger, and both of the young folks were professing. They did marry years later. Why not? My sister in law wore a "wedding band" that Johan Marais gave her when he was in the work. It was a sign of their marriage and his "commitment" to her. This went on for about 25 years and the overseers knew about it for many years of that time. But that can't be a bad influence. That is just two people having sex with mutual consent. It makes no difference that it is a worker....Right? Even workers aren't perfect and everyone sins and that is in the past and we need not throw stones when the beam is in our own eye...blah blah.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 7, 2011 0:17:59 GMT -5
Did JM get the ring from a Cracker Jack box? If so, I hoped he shared the cracker jacks.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 7, 2011 1:29:55 GMT -5
But in the long term these are the kids who end up with a higher teen pregnancy rate and more STDs. By age 20 the abstinence rate is just like the kids who did not join the abstinence movement. Source please. I'm interested. pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/gca?gca=123%2F1%2Fe110This is more directed towards the Virginity Pledge that is part of the government abstinence program. www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/bush-teen-pregnancy-cdc-reportAfter reaching record high teen pregnancy rates following the abstinence-only government program under President Bush, the teen pregnancy rate, following federal de-funding of abstinence-only sex education and improved safe-sex campaigns, has again started to fall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 11:21:12 GMT -5
Thanks. It is a very poor conclusion to suggest that abstinence programs lead to increased teen pregnancy and STDs. From the second article it states " the CDC does not attribute a cause" for the rise in rates. Secular education should include comprehensive education on sex. I don't doubt that abstinence-only education is not sufficient to protect kids from pregnancy and disease for those who choose to be sexually active. Regardless, abstinence among teens is the best way to stop teen pregnancies, STDs and quite arguably, emotional and psychological challenges which arise from child sex practices.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 7, 2011 16:05:09 GMT -5
One thing you will find is that the data available needs to be looked at carefully. It is a very poor conclusion to suggest that abstinence programs lead to increased teen pregnancy and STDs. From the second article it states " the CDC does not attribute a cause" for the rise in rates. But they do say: The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.In theory. But, teens being teens, the data does show that there can be unwanted consequences. When teens look at sex as coitus only they are freer in participating in other behavior, sometimes very risky, while maintaining their 'virginity'. Abstinence-only education includes discussions of values, character building, and, in some cases, refusal skills. · Promote abstinence from sex · Do not acknowledge that many teenagers will become sexually active · Do not teach about contraception or condom use · Avoid discussions of abortion · Cites sexually transmitted diseases and HIV as reasons to remain abstinent Abstinence-plus education programs explore the context for and meanings involved in sex. · Promote abstinence from sex · Acknowledge that many teenagers will be- come sexually active · Teach about contraception and condom use · Include discussions about contraception, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 17:47:47 GMT -5
I'm going to have a teenager in 3 years. I hoping to replicate Clearday's experience with his kids!! The biggest issue with me and my group of 2x2 teenagers when we were teenagers(long, long ago)-- is that we didn't know what SIN was. So, we did all the things talked about on this thread and then some -- underage drinking (and illegal drug use), fornication, filthy language, law breaking, etc. etc. And, what we felt guilty about was going to movies, wearing jeans and trimming our hair. And missing meetings. Quite the skewed perspective. And, I can tell you exactly where we got that perspective: From the workers! i've bolded what i see as an excellent point: do professing people [kids in particular] know what SIN is? first response: OF COURSE THEY KNOW WHAT SIN IS!! (what a silly question!!) Anyone that goes to meeting or church and claims to be a professing Christian and reads their Bibles knows what SIN IS......... ----hmm. i beg to differ??. if my memory serves me correctly, my attitude and relationship with "dealing with sin" was not what I would call a healthy one, nor one that was fostered .. what do i mean by that? well, just that "sin" was considered to be something that was to be avoided and "sin" was whatever my mother(and sometimes my father) indicated sin was; which in some cases, not all, was what the workers and other friends indicated sin was.... let me clarify: nothing WRONG with avoiding what you know to be sin: what I see as unhealthy would be to AVOID DEALING WITH SIN:...and avoid facing up to REAL SIN: the sin that we carry inside us. . ... i am not saying that they totally AVOIDED talking about sin: just that i do not believe that the talk about the various sins was always accurate or healthy. what would be considered healthy talk about sin? well, just that sin is sin and it is not just what we humans might label and 'tag' as sin, but real sin is sin in the eyes of God: and He looks firstly into the the inner person. It seems to me that my mother "pushed" the appearance of appearing sin-free and having a certain outward "look" what was considered to be sin-less, and wholesome: she did not forbid us from trimming our hair, for example, but she did forbid some other things that are not really and truly sins. Rather, they were things that she had a conviction over and pushed onto her teenage kids: no make-up, for example. looking back, years later I cannot claim that her no make-up stance was particularly HARMFUL to my health, but the "harm" that it did do was it deflected the FOCUS away from other sins that in my view are more severe and consequential and caused us kids to focus on "sins" that perhaps we did not need to spend so much time focusing on .. . i grew to realize that one does not need to be professing to have a mother that pushes the "no make-up clause"... too funny and that deciding not to wear make-up is not so much a Christ-driven conviction about sin, but rather more of a personal preference .. [just my take] same goes for men's taste in women's make-up: it has little to do with actual conviction of sin and more to do with taste .. .. .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 17:49:36 GMT -5
Does it come in a choice of flavours?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 7, 2011 17:52:28 GMT -5
Does it come in a choice of flavours? Only lipstick, from what I understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 17:58:59 GMT -5
Does it come in a choice of flavours? hmm. i find it interesting that you have spelled "flavo urs" in the King James Version ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 18:00:38 GMT -5
Does it come in a choice of flavours? Only lipstick, from what I understand. ahhemm: most high-quality, sophisticated lipsticks do not boast having any particular flavors: that is for kids...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 18:08:51 GMT -5
Does it come in a choice of flavours? hmm. i find it interesting that you have spelled "flavo urs" in the King James Version .. It's the Queen's English, and you will find that spelling being used by participants here from NZ, OZ, Canada and Great Britain. We have a few more funny spelling things too, but mostly to do with adding "u" in a lot of words, or more accurately, you Americans have taken it away.
|
|