Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 23:15:31 GMT -5
so you don't believe that paul was inspired of God? Isn't that what clearday was saying when he said "Too bad they weren't given that power from Jesus. Worker following worker is a long standing tradition." He is saying that the workers need to be inspired by God not following each other. Exactly. "Inspiration by Christ" is even better because Jesus is the expression of God: Love and Truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 23:43:21 GMT -5
In mainstream Christian churches the process is not to work from source material but upon the doctrine of previous theological work. This is how the RCC came by all this Mary Co-redemtrix and Queen of Heaven came about. This happens in Judeaism where the rabbinic literature is what the current rabbis work from rather than the Torah.
I do not see this behavior amongst Workers. If a Worker came to me and said I should do or believe such and such because of a new doctrine I would challenge that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 18:25:00 GMT -5
Bert, there are things young people in Truth do today that wouldn't have been tolerated in the 1970s and 80s. At least not in my day. Bert I don't know about Australia. But I know about the USA. Bert, the only thing that doesn't change in truth is the presentation of the gospel meeting sermons. And this generation doesn't pay attention to uninspiring speakers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 18:32:58 GMT -5
I am not sure what you mean by "uninspiring" speakers. Beware of so-called "inspirational" preachers: these often work on EMOTION and can suffer from EGO. You know (or I hope you know) there were some in the Apostolic Church who were greatl disapointed in meeting Paul in person and hearing him speak.
They read Paul's epistles and were expecting some Billy Graham type of personality and presentation. Thus they found Paul "boring."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 9:29:51 GMT -5
I am not sure what you mean by "uninspiring" speakers. Beware of so-called "inspirational" preachers: these often work on EMOTION and can suffer from EGO. You know (or I hope you know) there were some in the Apostolic Church who were greatl disapointed in meeting Paul in person and hearing him speak. They read Paul's epistles and were expecting some Billy Graham type of personality and presentation. Thus they found Paul "boring." You think Paul's writings are Billy Graham-like?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 9:34:22 GMT -5
I am not sure what you mean by "uninspiring" speakers. Beware of so-called "inspirational" preachers: these often work on EMOTION and can suffer from EGO. You know (or I hope you know) there were some in the Apostolic Church who were greatl disapointed in meeting Paul in person and hearing him speak. They read Paul's epistles and were expecting some Billy Graham type of personality and presentation. Thus they found Paul "boring." You think Paul's writings are Billy Graham-like? Both Paul and Bill Graham would be amazed to hear this, I suspect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 9:42:03 GMT -5
You think Paul's writings are Billy Graham-like? Both Paul and Bill Graham would be amazed to hear this, I suspect. But we do come to the TMB to hear such amazing things!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 18, 2014 22:07:27 GMT -5
I am not sure what you mean by "uninspiring" speakers. Beware of so-called "inspirational" preachers: these often work on EMOTION and can suffer from EGO. You know (or I hope you know) there were some in the Apostolic Church who were greatl disapointed in meeting Paul in person and hearing him speak. They read Paul's epistles and were expecting some Billy Graham type of personality and presentation. Thus they found Paul "boring." You think Paul's writings are Billy Graham-like? Well they certainly both had big egos! Paul considered himself to be one of the apostles and actually went to Jerusalem to tell the other apostles how they should be spreading the gospel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 22:13:27 GMT -5
You think Paul's writings are Billy Graham-like? Well they certainly both had big egos! Paul considered himself to be one of the apostles and actually went to Jerusalem to tell the other apostles how they should be spreading the gospel. Quite possible. I'm certainly not outright rejecting Bert's thesis!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 22:54:55 GMT -5
Quote - "You think Paul's writings are Billy Graham-like?"
Yes, his epistles are very inspiring. Some of his phrases have entered the English language, like "seeing through a glass darkly." and "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.” and “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."
etc..
Some suspect that he wrote these from prison, where he had the time to carefully formulate his words.
Like this letter to the Corinithains,
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
note "charity" here means "love" Paul wasn't into Salvation Army style of worship.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 18, 2014 23:09:24 GMT -5
Here's an interesting concept to unravel.
How did the god of war in the Old Testament who didn't mind telling people to kill even infants, turn into this "loving compassionate" god of the Christian world today?
In the morning newspaper, after I do the cross word puzzle, my second perusal of the newspaper is the comics.
Yesterday, Bucky (of the Get Fuzzy comic strip ) found a crocodile in his bed.
He hollers, "How dare you stupid crocs try to kill me in my own bed!! Die!! Die!!"
Whereupon the croc says, "Whoa, Whoa, Love you enemys." Whereupon instead, Bucky gives the croc a big smack over the head and says, "I'm more of an old testament guy." I do find the comics very edifying at times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 23:19:45 GMT -5
Dmmichgood, I am a Fan of comics too. Some amazing philosophy there !!!!!
But this is what people do -
They take PART of the "Old Testament God", ie the war and vengeance part, and compare it to PART of the "New Testament God" which focuses upon what Jesus did. But God in the OT so loved His own people, and Jesus brought so many judgements against those same people.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2014 9:17:36 GMT -5
Dmmichgood, I am a Fan of comics too. Some amazing philosophy there !!!!! But this is what people do - They take PART of the "Old Testament God", ie the war and vengeance part, and compare it to PART of the "New Testament God" which focuses upon what Jesus did. But God in the OT so loved His own people, and Jesus brought so many judgements against those same people. And that helps them, how???
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 19, 2014 17:58:09 GMT -5
Children are the most likely next crop of believers. The best opportunity to indoctrinate a person in a lifetime of belief and devotion is when they are young.
Jesuit motto, " Give me child until he is seven and I will give you the man" alleged to be attributed to Francis Xavier, the co-founder of the Jesuit Order.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 20, 2014 14:21:18 GMT -5
Dmmichgood, I am a Fan of comics too. Some amazing philosophy there !!!!! But this is what people do -
They take PART of the "Old Testament God", ie the war and vengeance part,and compare it to PART of the "New Testament God" which focuses upon what Jesus did. But God in the OT so loved His own people, and Jesus brought so many judgements against those same people. You mean that is what Christians do! They take the PART of the "Old Testament God," ie "war and vengeance" and anything else from the OT that they want to believe.
Then they try to fit that into the dogma of the "New Testament" and and reconcile it with what they want to believe about Jesus.
If the OT doesn't jive with the NT, they say Jesus fulfulled that that part of the OT therefore, we don't have to follow those particular OT laws.
However, if OT bolsters their ideas, they will include those things include into Christianity.
They want the best of both worlds.
Of course, that makes such a mish-mash of beliefs, that each person or group of people can interpret it the way that suits them.
That is one reason that there are literally thousands of different denomination of Christianity in the world today.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 20, 2014 14:33:43 GMT -5
Dmmichgood, I am a Fan of comics too. Some amazing philosophy there !!!!! But this is what people do -
They take PART of the "Old Testament God", ie the war and vengeance part,and compare it to PART of the "New Testament God" which focuses upon what Jesus did. But God in the OT so loved His own people, and Jesus brought so many judgements against those same people. You mean that is what Christians do! They take the PART of the "Old Testament God," ie "war and vengeance" and anything else from the OT that they want to believe.
Then they try to fit that into the dogma of the "New Testament" and and reconcile it with what they want to believe about Jesus.
If the OT doesn't jive with the NT, they say Jesus fulfulled that that part of the OT therefore, we don't have to follow those particular OT laws.
However, if OT bolsters their ideas, they will include those things include into Christianity.
They want the best of both worlds.
Of course, that makes such a mish-mash of beliefs, that each person or group of people can interpret it the way that suits them.
That is one reason that there are literally thousands of different denomination of Christianity in the world today.
Matthew 5:17 -18 makes a cafeteria approach to the OT hard to justify 17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 20:12:40 GMT -5
Quote - "You mean that is what Christians do! They take the PART of the "Old Testament God," ie "war and vengeance" and anything else from the OT that they want to believe. Then they try to fit that into the dogma of the "New Testament" and and reconcile it with what they want to believe about Jesus. If the OT doesn't jive with the NT, they say Jesus fulfulled that that part of the OT therefore, we don't have to follow those particular OT laws. However, if OT bolsters their ideas, they will include those things include into Christianity. They want the best of both worlds. Of course, that makes such a mish-mash of beliefs, that each person or group of people can interpret it the way that suits them. That is one reason that there are literally thousands of different denomination of Christianity in the world today."
There are too many generalities here for me to comment. Please don't judge the bible by the religions which lay claim to it. I take the view that a belief cannot be based upon a "proof text" because by definition proof texts assume one text overrides another. I see no contradiction in the different modes of God, anymore than I see a contradiction in people having them. Jesus could be loving and angry, aloof but open, condemning but inviting etc..
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Apr 27, 2014 0:11:27 GMT -5
Regarding the posts relating to fear and rules. Fear no, but attempted enforcement of rules, absolutely. Below is an example of attempted and failed rule enforcement from 4 years ago. Two workers attended an event with many young friends. Shortly after this the senior worker organised some ‘special young people’s meetings’. We were informed that those who did not attend the meetings would be getting a personal visit. With the benefit of hindsight I see this as a bullying tactic. At the beginning of the meetings a discussion format was suggested by the worker. The worker however was dismissive of opinions and questions. One young person whom the worker patronisingly dismissed has now left the meetings. More than likely these meetings helped assist in the making of that decision. As for the content of the meetings 1 Timothy 2 8-9 and some other verses I cannot remember now were read. Two main topics were spoken about. One was women’s apparel. The worker’s main point was that we are apparently to wear sleeves of a certain length. I’m not sure of the exact specifications although it was deemed that the sleeve did not necessarily need to extend as far as the elbow. Some vague mention of wrath was included as an add on for the guys. 1 Timothy 2:10 was largely ignored. The second topic was the consumption of alcohol. Drunkenness’ is apparently not the only thing to be avoided. All consumption of alcohol is to be avoided. What we learnt from the meetings is that our views and questions are apparently inferior to that worker’s opinions. We also learnt to avoid inviting any workers to events and to hide any behaviour that we think may prompt any more such meetings. Afterwards when asked we would say the concept of young people meetings is lovely. What we don’t usually elaborate on was the content and execution of those meetings. Thanks for that. It's been over 10 years since we have encountered that sort of legalistic instruction. The idea of specifying sleeve length isn't likely to be presented around here and certainly wouldn't be accepted by young people. It would really distance workers from the kids. One thing the workers are trying to battle is meeting attendance by young people. It is becoming much more common for young people to reduce meeting attendance, and many just don't go on Wednesday night at all. Of course the workers are approaching the problem in a backward manner which is not unusual. They think those who don't attend are "missing so much" rather than asking "are we giving enough?". I probably should point out that I've yet to see that the instructions changed anything out of worker eyesight. Ignoring the instructions behind the workers backs though is really a very poor strategy to eliminate this kind of the 'bad worker behaviour'. If this type of legalistic instruction was to take place in your area, in what ways do you think it wouldn't be accepted by young people? (And can you think of any form of group non-acceptance that might take place that would actually modify worker behaviour?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 7:09:57 GMT -5
Thanks for that. It's been over 10 years since we have encountered that sort of legalistic instruction. The idea of specifying sleeve length isn't likely to be presented around here and certainly wouldn't be accepted by young people. It would really distance workers from the kids. One thing the workers are trying to battle is meeting attendance by young people. It is becoming much more common for young people to reduce meeting attendance, and many just don't go on Wednesday night at all. Of course the workers are approaching the problem in a backward manner which is not unusual. They think those who don't attend are "missing so much" rather than asking "are we giving enough?". I probably should point out that I've yet to see that the instructions changed anything out of worker eyesight. Ignoring the instructions behind the workers backs though is really a very poor strategy to eliminate this kind of the 'bad worker behaviour'. If this type of legalistic instruction was to take place in your area, in what ways do you think it wouldn't be accepted by young people? (And can you think of any form of group non-acceptance that might take place that would actually modify worker behaviour?)Just over 10 years ago, we had a young people's gathering where one of the instructions was for young people to not listen to the radio in case they might hear Sting or some other presumably unacceptable artist. Well, first of all, young people were already beyond listening to the radio for tunes as they all had iPods and other devices for listening to music. Secondly, most had no idea who Sting was, an artist of more interest to middleaged listeners, not teenagers. The response was eyerolling indicating "what the.....?". And of course, the meeting had no effect on the kids except to have confirmed that the workers were completely out of touch with young people. Personally, I wouldn't recommend young people to speak up in a meeting like that. Workers tightly control these meetings (for instance they only answer questions that have been asked in advance in written form) and any questioning would be viewed as a challenge to their authority so answers would first attempt to be diverted and if would be unlikely that the participant would be able to persist in seeking a real answer. I would hate to see a kid humiliated in front of their peers in a meeting like that. In most of these cases, the correct response is the Gandhi approach of peaceful civil disobedience by ignoring the edicts and carrying on. We always taught our kids to live by a few simple principles and they were free to test anything they were told, including by us. It is more important for kids to live by sound principles and their consciences than it is for them to feel any pressure to change worker behaviour. So no damage done in the case above with our kids, the workers just reduced their credibility by a few notches. I feel sorry for the kids who had been taught that the workers are next to God, as statements like that cause a lot of confusion and stress. For egregious instructions that put kids in danger or a damaging idea of some sort, parents should first speak to the offending workers to resolve it. If that fails, then the parents should discuss it with other parents for their input. Then the parents should write the overseer about it, hopefully having some other concerned parents doing the same thing......which doesn't happen often among the friends because of the awe given to workers and overseers who are considered to be incapable of making a mistake like this. That's just about all you can do. You won't get a direct admission of an error, but there is an outside chance that it will result in a change of behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 27, 2014 10:12:15 GMT -5
I probably should point out that I've yet to see that the instructions changed anything out of worker eyesight. Ignoring the instructions behind the workers backs though is really a very poor strategy to eliminate this kind of the 'bad worker behaviour'. If this type of legalistic instruction was to take place in your area, in what ways do you think it wouldn't be accepted by young people? (And can you think of any form of group non-acceptance that might take place that would actually modify worker behaviour?)Just over 10 years ago, we had a young people's gathering where one of the instructions was for young people to not listen to the radio in case they might hear Sting or some other presumably unacceptable artist. Well, first of all, young people were already beyond listening to the radio for tunes as they all had iPods and other devices for listening to music. Secondly, most had no idea who Sting was, an artist of more interest to middleaged listeners, not teenagers. The response was eyerolling indicating "what the.....?". And of course, the meeting had no effect on the kids except to have confirmed that the workers were completely out of touch with young people. Personally, I wouldn't recommend young people to speak up in a meeting like that. Workers tightly control these meetings (for instance they only answer questions that have been asked in advance in written form) and any questioning would be viewed as a challenge to their authority so answers would first attempt to be diverted and if would be unlikely that the participant would be able to persist in seeking a real answer. I would hate to see a kid humiliated in front of their peers in a meeting like that. In most of these cases, the correct response is the Gandhi approach of peaceful civil disobedience by ignoring the edicts and carrying on. We always taught our kids to live by a few simple principles and they were free to test anything they were told, including by us. It is more important for kids to live by sound principles and their consciences than it is for them to feel any pressure to change worker behaviour. So no damage done in the case above with our kids, the workers just reduced their credibility by a few notches. I feel sorry for the kids who had been taught that the workers are next to God, as statements like that cause a lot of confusion and stress. For egregious instructions that put kids in danger or a damaging idea of some sort, parents should first speak to the offending workers to resolve it. If that fails, then the parents should discuss it with other parents for their input. Then the parents should write the overseer about it, hopefully having some other concerned parents doing the same thing......which doesn't happen often among the friends because of the awe given to workers and overseers who are considered to be incapable of making a mistake like this. That's just about all you can do. You won't get a direct admission of an error, but there is an outside chance that it will result in a change of behaviour. Wish I had you as a dad when I was growing up! I was taught to never disobey and always respect the workers. So when I did disobey and lose respect for them it was a traumatic time for me. A lot of anger initially and a whole lot of no respect. I still was courteous but I no longer thought they could do no wrong and I ignored them as much as was possible having to be around them like I was.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 27, 2014 10:40:42 GMT -5
Just over 10 years ago, we had a young people's gathering where one of the instructions was for young people to not listen to the radio in case they might hear Sting or some other presumably unacceptable artist. Well, first of all, young people were already beyond listening to the radio for tunes as they all had iPods and other devices for listening to music. Secondly, most had no idea who Sting was, an artist of more interest to middleaged listeners, not teenagers. The response was eyerolling indicating "what the.....?". And of course, the meeting had no effect on the kids except to have confirmed that the workers were completely out of touch with young people. Personally, I wouldn't recommend young people to speak up in a meeting like that. Workers tightly control these meetings (for instance they only answer questions that have been asked in advance in written form) and any questioning would be viewed as a challenge to their authority so answers would first attempt to be diverted and if would be unlikely that the participant would be able to persist in seeking a real answer. I would hate to see a kid humiliated in front of their peers in a meeting like that. In most of these cases, the correct response is the Gandhi approach of peaceful civil disobedience by ignoring the edicts and carrying on. We always taught our kids to live by a few simple principles and they were free to test anything they were told, including by us. It is more important for kids to live by sound principles and their consciences than it is for them to feel any pressure to change worker behaviour. So no damage done in the case above with our kids, the workers just reduced their credibility by a few notches. I feel sorry for the kids who had been taught that the workers are next to God, as statements like that cause a lot of confusion and stress. For egregious instructions that put kids in danger or a damaging idea of some sort, parents should first speak to the offending workers to resolve it. If that fails, then the parents should discuss it with other parents for their input. Then the parents should write the overseer about it, hopefully having some other concerned parents doing the same thing......which doesn't happen often among the friends because of the awe given to workers and overseers who are considered to be incapable of making a mistake like this. That's just about all you can do. You won't get a direct admission of an error, but there is an outside chance that it will result in a change of behaviour. Wish I had you as a dad when I was growing up! I was taught to never disobey and always respect the workers. So when I did disobey and lose respect for them it was a traumatic time for me. A lot of anger initially and a whole lot of no respect. I still was courteous but I no longer thought they could do no wrong and I ignored them as much as was possible having to be around them like I was.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 27, 2014 10:47:50 GMT -5
Wish I had you as a dad when I was growing up! I was taught to never disobey and always respect the workers. So when I did disobey and lose respect for them it was a traumatic time for me. A lot of anger initially and a whole lot of no respect. I still was courteous but I no longer thought they could do no wrong and I ignored them as much as was possible having to be around them like I was. Exactly xna. Not a real self esteem builder. But then they are taught to deny the self, so not a huge surprise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 10:50:05 GMT -5
Just over 10 years ago, we had a young people's gathering where one of the instructions was for young people to not listen to the radio in case they might hear Sting or some other presumably unacceptable artist. Well, first of all, young people were already beyond listening to the radio for tunes as they all had iPods and other devices for listening to music. Secondly, most had no idea who Sting was, an artist of more interest to middleaged listeners, not teenagers. The response was eyerolling indicating "what the.....?". And of course, the meeting had no effect on the kids except to have confirmed that the workers were completely out of touch with young people. Personally, I wouldn't recommend young people to speak up in a meeting like that. Workers tightly control these meetings (for instance they only answer questions that have been asked in advance in written form) and any questioning would be viewed as a challenge to their authority so answers would first attempt to be diverted and if would be unlikely that the participant would be able to persist in seeking a real answer. I would hate to see a kid humiliated in front of their peers in a meeting like that. In most of these cases, the correct response is the Gandhi approach of peaceful civil disobedience by ignoring the edicts and carrying on. We always taught our kids to live by a few simple principles and they were free to test anything they were told, including by us. It is more important for kids to live by sound principles and their consciences than it is for them to feel any pressure to change worker behaviour. So no damage done in the case above with our kids, the workers just reduced their credibility by a few notches. I feel sorry for the kids who had been taught that the workers are next to God, as statements like that cause a lot of confusion and stress. For egregious instructions that put kids in danger or a damaging idea of some sort, parents should first speak to the offending workers to resolve it. If that fails, then the parents should discuss it with other parents for their input. Then the parents should write the overseer about it, hopefully having some other concerned parents doing the same thing......which doesn't happen often among the friends because of the awe given to workers and overseers who are considered to be incapable of making a mistake like this. That's just about all you can do. You won't get a direct admission of an error, but there is an outside chance that it will result in a change of behaviour. Wish I had you as a dad when I was growing up! I was taught to never disobey and always respect the workers. So when I did disobey and lose respect for them it was a traumatic time for me. A lot of anger initially and a whole lot of no respect. I still was courteous but I no longer thought they could do no wrong and I ignored them as much as was possible having to be around them like I was. A lot of kids were (and still are) raised on the basis of obedience as being pre-eminent over principle and that causes a lot of unnecessary stress, even abuse in most cases. Kids are forced to obey even when it makes no sense, and that never ends well. When we decided to raise our kids on principle-first, it felt like we were going out on a limb because conventional wisdom dictated that parents should exert control and forced obedience first on their children. I'm glad today we resisted that concept and raised kids to make decisions on sound principles, even to challenge us as parents with alternative solutions when something seemed to work out better for everyone. As a result, we never had a "defiant" moment from our kids and they almost always went along with the program because I think they felt comfortable to propose alternatives and if based on sound and reasonable principles, they were never refused, or counter-proposals were made that they were happy with. Today I feel really relieved that we dodged the bullet of going with the obedience and control model because the results have spoken for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 27, 2014 11:15:32 GMT -5
Wish I had you as a dad when I was growing up! I was taught to never disobey and always respect the workers. So when I did disobey and lose respect for them it was a traumatic time for me. A lot of anger initially and a whole lot of no respect. I still was courteous but I no longer thought they could do no wrong and I ignored them as much as was possible having to be around them like I was. A lot of kids were (and still are) raised on the basis of obedience as being pre-eminent over principle and that causes a lot of unnecessary stress, even abuse in most cases. Kids are forced to obey even when it makes no sense, and that never ends well. When we decided to raise our kids on principle-first, it felt like we were going out on a limb because conventional wisdom dictated that parents should exert control and forced obedience first on their children. I'm glad today we resisted that concept and raised kids to make decisions on sound principles, even to challenge us as parents with alternative solutions when something seemed to work out better for everyone. As a result, we never had a "defiant" moment from our kids and they almost always went along with the program because I think they felt comfortable to propose alternatives and if based on sound and reasonable principles, they were never refused, or counter-proposals were made that they were happy with. Today I feel really relieved that we dodged the bullet of going with the obedience and control model because the results have spoken for themselves. That's what I did with mine too. Probably because of how I was raised, but it ended up being a very good way imo. I taught them they could negotiate and if they came up with a really good reason to change my mind about something then I would. So they felt they had some power over things, within reason of course, and also it taught them to think about why they should be allowed to do something. My son did that better than my daughter, but neither of them gave me problems which I am forever grateful for lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 16:26:36 GMT -5
A lot of kids were (and still are) raised on the basis of obedience as being pre-eminent over principle and that causes a lot of unnecessary stress, even abuse in most cases. Kids are forced to obey even when it makes no sense, and that never ends well. When we decided to raise our kids on principle-first, it felt like we were going out on a limb because conventional wisdom dictated that parents should exert control and forced obedience first on their children. I'm glad today we resisted that concept and raised kids to make decisions on sound principles, even to challenge us as parents with alternative solutions when something seemed to work out better for everyone. As a result, we never had a "defiant" moment from our kids and they almost always went along with the program because I think they felt comfortable to propose alternatives and if based on sound and reasonable principles, they were never refused, or counter-proposals were made that they were happy with. Today I feel really relieved that we dodged the bullet of going with the obedience and control model because the results have spoken for themselves. That's what I did with mine too. Probably because of how I was raised, but it ended up being a very good way imo. I taught them they could negotiate and if they came up with a really good reason to change my mind about something then I would. So they felt they had some power over things, within reason of course, and also it taught them to think about why they should be allowed to do something. My son did that better than my daughter, but neither of them gave me problems which I am forever grateful for lol. Sounds like we had nearly identical methodology. The thing about raising them on principles rather than a rule book is that once they buy into the principles, they figure out the rules by themselves as they become self evident. The principles are the boundaries and stick with them for a lifetime. By the time they are in their teens, they are on autopilot with very little parental interference. For instance, we never did set any curfew times on our kids in their teens. They always told us what time they planned to come in or needed a ride and we never had to tell them to make it earlier. It was amazing really, as the times they picked to come in at night as teens was always at least one, maybe two hours earlier than what I was prepared to accept. Give kids the tools to be sensible, and chances pretty good that they will be!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 27, 2014 17:02:56 GMT -5
That's what I did with mine too. Probably because of how I was raised, but it ended up being a very good way imo. I taught them they could negotiate and if they came up with a really good reason to change my mind about something then I would. So they felt they had some power over things, within reason of course, and also it taught them to think about why they should be allowed to do something. My son did that better than my daughter, but neither of them gave me problems which I am forever grateful for lol. Sounds like we had nearly identical methodology. The thing about raising them on principles rather than a rule book is that once they buy into the principles, they figure out the rules by themselves as they become self evident. The principles are the boundaries and stick with them for a lifetime. By the time they are in their teens, they are on autopilot with very little parental interference. For instance, we never did set any curfew times on our kids in their teens. They always told us what time they planned to come in or needed a ride and we never had to tell them to make it earlier. It was amazing really, as the times they picked to come in at night as teens was always at least one, maybe two hours earlier than what I was prepared to accept. Give kids the tools to be sensible, and chances pretty good that they will be! That was my experience with my teens too. My daughter would even come home and tell me that she needed me to tell her she couldn't go to a party she didn't want to be at. First time she did that she blew me away. She didn't want to look like a nerd but she didn't want to go so she got me to be the reason. She used me to be the bad guy a few times. I was more than happy to oblige her! They both have a good sense of who they are and what they stand for. I'm not sure I had much to do with that, but they figured it out on their own. It was so neat to watch them become adults.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 17:15:03 GMT -5
Sounds like we had nearly identical methodology. The thing about raising them on principles rather than a rule book is that once they buy into the principles, they figure out the rules by themselves as they become self evident. The principles are the boundaries and stick with them for a lifetime. By the time they are in their teens, they are on autopilot with very little parental interference. For instance, we never did set any curfew times on our kids in their teens. They always told us what time they planned to come in or needed a ride and we never had to tell them to make it earlier. It was amazing really, as the times they picked to come in at night as teens was always at least one, maybe two hours earlier than what I was prepared to accept. Give kids the tools to be sensible, and chances pretty good that they will be! That was my experience with my teens too. My daughter would even come home and tell me that she needed me to tell her she couldn't go to a party she didn't want to be at. First time she did that she blew me away. She didn't want to look like a nerd but she didn't want to go so she got me to be the reason. She used me to be the bad guy a few times. I was more than happy to oblige her! They both have a good sense of who they are and what they stand for. I'm not sure I had much to do with that, but they figured it out on their own. It was so neat to watch them become adults. Similar here. My daughter asked me when she would get "grounded" at an age when her friends were getting grounded. It's like she felt like she was missing out! Problem is, she never came close to doing anything that would justify "grounding" so I couldn't oblige her wishes! Recently I complimented a cousin of mine on her parenting skills as I was seeing 4 awesome young adults living great lives. She said "oh I didn't do it, they raised themselves and I just set the boundaries!" I thought that was pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Apr 28, 2014 8:04:53 GMT -5
I probably should point out that I've yet to see that the instructions changed anything out of worker eyesight. Ignoring the instructions behind the workers backs though is really a very poor strategy to eliminate this kind of the 'bad worker behaviour'. If this type of legalistic instruction was to take place in your area, in what ways do you think it wouldn't be accepted by young people? (And can you think of any form of group non-acceptance that might take place that would actually modify worker behaviour?)Just over 10 years ago, we had a young people's gathering where one of the instructions was for young people to not listen to the radio in case they might hear Sting or some other presumably unacceptable artist. Well, first of all, young people were already beyond listening to the radio for tunes as they all had iPods and other devices for listening to music. Secondly, most had no idea who Sting was, an artist of more interest to middleaged listeners, not teenagers. The response was eyerolling indicating "what the.....?". And of course, the meeting had no effect on the kids except to have confirmed that the workers were completely out of touch with young people. Personally, I wouldn't recommend young people to speak up in a meeting like that. Workers tightly control these meetings (for instance they only answer questions that have been asked in advance in written form) and any questioning would be viewed as a challenge to their authority so answers would first attempt to be diverted and if would be unlikely that the participant would be able to persist in seeking a real answer. I would hate to see a kid humiliated in front of their peers in a meeting like that. In most of these cases, the correct response is the Gandhi approach of peaceful civil disobedience by ignoring the edicts and carrying on. We always taught our kids to live by a few simple principles and they were free to test anything they were told, including by us. It is more important for kids to live by sound principles and their consciences than it is for them to feel any pressure to change worker behaviour. So no damage done in the case above with our kids, the workers just reduced their credibility by a few notches. I feel sorry for the kids who had been taught that the workers are next to God, as statements like that cause a lot of confusion and stress. For egregious instructions that put kids in danger or a damaging idea of some sort, parents should first speak to the offending workers to resolve it. If that fails, then the parents should discuss it with other parents for their input. Then the parents should write the overseer about it, hopefully having some other concerned parents doing the same thing......which doesn't happen often among the friends because of the awe given to workers and overseers who are considered to be incapable of making a mistake like this. That's just about all you can do. You won't get a direct admission of an error, but there is an outside chance that it will result in a change of behaviour. Thanks . This sounds to be a very similar situation to ours albeit a different topic. Some people's responses and the hit to worker credibility was similar. I'll try and respond another day.
|
|