|
Post by rjkee on Apr 9, 2008 7:47:31 GMT -5
Teenager,
.... nor did I claim that you'd supported an 'outright rule of not being allowed one'.
Regards
Robert
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Apr 9, 2008 8:48:21 GMT -5
Acker Bilk I still listen to these. Stranger on the shore my favourite. (Or was that unknown person on the beach?)
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Apr 9, 2008 16:02:34 GMT -5
Teenager, .... nor did I claim that you'd supported an 'outright rule of not being allowed one'. Regards Robert But by implication......... "My impression is that when 2x2 workers 'do not agree' with a particular appliance (TV, HiFi, wrist watch, etc.) it's effectively banned, and punishments including excommunication result. I object to such banning and believe that the promotion of a decent set of values, and encouragement of the followers to use discretion is a much more acceptable approach (for thinking individuals)."
|
|
|
Post by rjkee on Apr 10, 2008 8:34:10 GMT -5
Teenager,
I suppose it is not reasonable for me to expect a young current 2x2 to understand my views and the anger I feel about the fact that as a teenager I was denied the right to listen to popular music, classical music, attend concerts, etc. In addition, as the music of the day, Top of the Pops, the charts, and pop groups (e.g. the Beatles) were a major topic of discussion among my peers at schools, I felt completely unable to take part in such normal social interaction. Occasionally this did bring some ridicule, but thankfully I did not end up a rejected misfit (I hope!).
I sometimes think that the 2x2 rules in those days were aimed at producing a 'peculiar' people, as some workers in their wisdom seemed to prefer the definition no. 1 for the word 'peculiar' as defined in the following from dictionary.com: 1. strange; happy; odd: peculiar happenings. 2. uncommon; unusual: the peculiar hobby of stuffing and mounting bats. 3. distinctive in nature or character from others. 4. belonging characteristically (usually fol. by to): an expression peculiar to Canadians. 5. belonging exclusively to some person, group, or thing: the peculiar properties of a drug. etc.
In light of the above, maybe you'll better understand my reaction.
Best regards
Robert
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Apr 10, 2008 13:11:42 GMT -5
Teenager, I suppose it is not reasonable for me to expect a young current 2x2 to understand my views and the anger I feel about the fact that as a teenager I was denied the right to listen to popular music, classical music, attend concerts, etc. In addition, as the music of the day, Top of the Pops, the charts, and pop groups (e.g. the Beatles) were a major topic of discussion among my peers at schools, I felt completely unable to take part in such normal social interaction. Occasionally this did bring some ridicule, but thankfully I did not end up a rejected misfit (I hope!). I sometimes think that the 2x2 rules in those days were aimed at producing a 'peculiar' people, as some workers in their wisdom seemed to prefer the definition no. 1 for the word 'peculiar' as defined in the following from dictionary.com: 1. strange; happy; odd: peculiar happenings. 2. uncommon; unusual: the peculiar hobby of stuffing and mounting bats. 3. distinctive in nature or character from others. 4. belonging characteristically (usually fol. by to): an expression peculiar to Canadians. 5. belonging exclusively to some person, group, or thing: the peculiar properties of a drug. etc. In light of the above, maybe you'll better understand my reaction. Best regards Robert I can some-what understand your frustration and anger. However I think its dangerous to generalise based on one persons experiance. Im sure your aware that a wider range of views/facts gives a more balanced outcome. I do not agree with "rules" or "bans" let the spirit guide. But clearly being consumed by certain things can be dangerous... which I talk about as a personal opinion.. not forcing it on anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by rjkee on Apr 10, 2008 17:40:59 GMT -5
Teenager,
You wrote: However I think its dangerous to generalise based on one persons (sic) experiance (sic)
I was fortunate to have intelligent and fairly liberal parents. Most of my 2x2 peers were subjected to a much stricter regime. Please note that I do not generalise based on one person's experience. I tend to quote from my own experience, but my views are based on many observations over a long period.
You also wrote: Im (sic) sure your (sic) aware that a wider range of views/facts gives a more balanced outcome.
Of course I am aware that more than one person's view's may be required to give an accurate reflection of a past reality. However, I do consider myself to be a fair-minded person, and I'm certain that others would have a much less charitable view on their experiences in the 2x2s during the 70's and 80's.
Best regards
Robert
|
|
|
Post by caff on Apr 11, 2008 1:24:09 GMT -5
... I do not agree with "rules" or "bans" let the spirit guide. with respect, Teenager, this wasn't possible when Robert and I were growing up - or at least the spirit could guide, but within a very small set of options approved by the workers. Of course it's a normal part of life to have a different experience to one's parents (e.g. the "i walked 5 miles in bare feet to school, with only a crust in my pockets" vs "the school bus called at the end of the lane"), but it's most unsettling to see acceptance now of behaviour which was once worthy of eternal damnation (the well-known conclusion of being removed from the 2x2 church) de-caff
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Apr 11, 2008 3:06:56 GMT -5
Isn't it incredible that these days a teenager might be able to get a degree without even being able to spell. Maybe it will be in arts or accountancy or something that doesn't require literacy?
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Apr 11, 2008 5:30:38 GMT -5
Isn't it incredible that these days a teenager might be able to get a degree without even being able to spell. Maybe it will be in arts or accountancy or something that doesn't require literacy? Isn't it amazing that someone so pompose as yourself would divert from the thread to attack my spelling skills. I'm not the best speller, and am happy to admit it. There are reasons for it. It would be nice if you showed a softer heart.
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Apr 11, 2008 5:33:29 GMT -5
Teenager, You wrote: However I think its dangerous to generalise based on one persons (sic) experiance (sic)I was fortunate to have intelligent and fairly liberal parents. Most of my 2x2 peers were subjected to a much stricter regime. Please note that I do not generalise based on one person's experience. I tend to quote from my own experience, but my views are based on many observations over a long period. You also wrote: Im (sic) sure your (sic) aware that a wider range of views/facts gives a more balanced outcome. Of course I am aware that more than one person's view's may be required to give an accurate reflection of a past reality. However, I do consider myself to be a fair-minded person, and I'm certain that others would have a much less charitable view on their experiences in the 2x2s during the 70's and 80's. Best regards Robert Under-stood. I am probably in a similar position to yourself, with more liberal parents. I do know relatives who have a much less charitable view... but all I'm saying is that I'm not implying a rule, when I say I "Don't really agree" with something. Regards T
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Apr 11, 2008 5:34:47 GMT -5
... I do not agree with "rules" or "bans" let the spirit guide. with respect, Teenager, this wasn't possible when Robert and I were growing up - or at least the spirit could guide, but within a very small set of options approved by the workers. Of course it's a normal part of life to have a different experience to one's parents (e.g. the "i walked 5 miles in bare feet to school, with only a crust in my pockets" vs "the school bus called at the end of the lane"), but it's most unsettling to see acceptance now of behaviour which was once worthy of eternal damnation (the well-known conclusion of being removed from the 2x2 church) de-caff I appreciate yourpoint, and can't deny it not having lived in that era. T
|
|
|
Post by creaky caff on Apr 11, 2008 5:44:34 GMT -5
I appreciate yourpoint, and can't deny it not having lived in that era. T era. era? ERA? ya can call me auntie and be done with it ... caff (totters off leaning noticably on her zimmer frame)
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Apr 11, 2008 6:23:06 GMT -5
Isn't it incredible that these days a teenager might be able to get a degree without even being able to spell. Maybe it will be in arts or accountancy or something that doesn't require literacy? Isn't it amazing that someone so pompose as yourself would divert from the thread to attack my spelling skills. I'm not the best speller, and am happy to admit it. There are reasons for it. It would be nice if you showed a softer heart. "Pompose"? whats that? Oh, I get it, you mean "pompous" Hard heated I am, I admit it. Maybe in my "era" we learned the three Rs (like "Auntie Caff"), but nowadays not so. Perhaps it slipped by, but Robert was having a go at your spelling first. "sic" means that he's writing it just as you did without correcting your spelling or grammar. So are you a numbers person rather than a wordsmith?
|
|
|
Post by Take no notice on Apr 11, 2008 7:21:48 GMT -5
You'd like Aileen to have a soft heart. Isn't a soft head enough?
It is never clear that Aileen understands a post. Her replies lack logic and when she reads this be sure she will justify her post with more ilogical word gymnastics!
|
|
here she goes again
Guest
|
Post by here she goes again on Apr 11, 2008 14:25:51 GMT -5
Isn't it incredible that these days a teenager might be able to get a degree without even being able to spell. Maybe it will be in arts or accountancy or something that doesn't require literacy? Just look at your own posts Aileen, before commenting on other people's spelling.
|
|
|
Post by music lover on Apr 11, 2008 14:33:15 GMT -5
Music is the expression of the soul.
King David played music. He danced to music.
He was criticised for doing so as well.
Do as you wish and take no notice of the rule makers who do not know either the Bible nor the heart of God, nor his spirit of love and rejoicing.
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Apr 11, 2008 16:48:51 GMT -5
Music is the expression of the soul. King David played music. He danced to music. He was criticised for doing so as well. Do as you wish and take no notice of the rule makers who do not know either the Bible nor the heart of God, nor his spirit of love and rejoicing. That is not the issue for me, I am talking about some of the modern-day music and the lyrics, it would be dangerous to listen to, to much.
|
|
|
Post by Rule not a rule on Apr 17, 2008 9:37:54 GMT -5
When is a rule not a rule? Not an outright rule? Do you mena a sneaky, sly imposition, a covert restriction, but we will dissimulate and pretend it is not a rule? What's wrong with being healthy and open and upfront and call a spade a spade because that is what it IS? Why so much underhand stealth in everything? Secrecy and cover up this is the hallmark of a cult.
|
|
|
Post by lyrics or music on Apr 17, 2008 9:55:16 GMT -5
Is the post about lyrics or music?
It is about having the choice, unrestricted by rules, to listen to whatever music style you should wish.
How is it that the two by two mind set is set on criticising any one else's taste in music, lyrics or whatever.
The hallmark of the group is criticism as long as it is not directed against themselves.
Most of these posts have the effect of bringing the two by twos out in their true colours for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by music lover on Apr 17, 2008 18:30:07 GMT -5
"and he that hath no music in his soul, let no such man be trusted." William Shakespeare
|
|
|
Post by FQ4WE1C on Apr 17, 2008 18:43:09 GMT -5
Teenager, You wrote: However I think its dangerous to generalise based on one persons (sic) experiance (sic)'quote] '....................... Where is any one generalising "based on one person's experience?" Are you referring to yourself? If so why don't you read up. get around and discuss and ask many people about their experience. Evaluate what you find. Then draw conclusions. Why would you limit yourself to one person's experience when so much is at stake. RJKee speaks from experience, his own and that of the many people he has come across, researched about, considered and drawn conclusions from, as do thinking people universally.
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Apr 18, 2008 4:18:29 GMT -5
Teenager, You wrote: However I think its dangerous to generalise based on one persons (sic) experiance (sic)'quote] '....................... Where is any one generalising "based on one person's experience?" Are you referring to yourself? If so why don't you read up. get around and discuss and ask many people about their experience. Evaluate what you find. Then draw conclusions. Why would you limit yourself to one person's experience when so much is at stake. RJKee speaks from experience, his own and that of the many people he has come across, researched about, considered and drawn conclusions from, as do thinking people universally. I don't think Mr Kee needs a spokesperson he is well able to communicate for himself! But in reply to your question: "My impression is that when 2x2 workers 'do not agree' with a particular appliance (TV, HiFi, wrist watch, etc.) it's effectively banned, and punishments including excommunication result. I object to such banning and believe that the promotion of a decent set of values, and encouragement of the followers to use discretion is a much more acceptable approach (for thinking individuals)."That was sent to me, implying that when I said "don't really agree" that its a "ban". That is not the case, and why I said don't generalize is because that might have been his experience but not what I am saying. Regards
|
|
|
Post by Who asks on Apr 18, 2008 21:57:16 GMT -5
What do you know that Mr. Key needs?
What you need teenager is a little more exposure to the real world beyond narrow introversion.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 3, 2008 3:21:13 GMT -5
Wow, the gross misinterpretation of teenager's views which I have read here is disgusting. Your minds seem to be oriented in such a way as to interpret everything you hear as a rule.
teenager said:
First, you interpret the word "them" to mean "Ipods" instead of "some of the younger friends" -- why would you think he'd be talking about not agreeing with an inanimate object, rather than the people he mentioned who use that object? Second, to interpret "in moderation its fine" as an absolute rule, you people must be absolutely insane. How is it that you purport to be on the side of tolerance but yet you cannot listen to someone state his opinion that moderation should be exercises in the use of Ipods without accusing him of making up rules?
Next, teenager clarified his views on Ipods when asked and made a very good point:
and you continue to condemn him further, calling his views ridiculous! It is ridiculous, in your view, to prefer MODERATION in the use of Ipods instead of 24/7 wandering around with music blaring in one's ears, oblivious to the world around?
rijke, you feel anger at your past experiences, so you take that anger out on teenager by ridiculing his views! That is the utmost hypocrisy. It seems that if you had been treated the way you treated teenager, you probably would have decided that ipods are required for salvation, because you see everything as a rule which must be followed! Why is there no allowing people to express their opinions without condemning them for creating rules?!
caff, it has always been possible to let the Spirit guide, since the time of Jesus, if you allow believe in Him and the Spirit to guide you. Times were not so different in the 1970s!
And you expect us to trust you when you tell us that the "2x2s" have too many rules?! When you view every single suggestion of moderation and every single expression of personal distrust or dislike of certain ways or habits or views, YOU interpret those things as oppressive rules -- YOU interpret EVERYTHING that way.
That is the worst of legalism -- to condemn others because they don't do everything the way you do, because they don't see everything as a rule.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 3, 2008 3:24:53 GMT -5
Secrecy and cover up this is the hallmark of a cult. Reading rules into everything is the hallmark of a cultish mind. That, my friend, is the hallmark of a human being. And casting every sinful aspect of human nature onto this "group", ignoring the fact that we are all imperfect individuals, is the hallmark of a bitter "exe".
|
|
|
Post by Why on May 3, 2008 10:33:56 GMT -5
Why do so many so called 2x2s refer to bitter exes? The manner in which they refer to them indicates a nasty spirit, not a compassionate one. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that 2x2 is the only true way. Shouldn't the members then be showing the compassion of Christ, the love for the lost and wounded instead of pertraying such a self righteous accusing attitude to exes?
The exes have been hurt, deceived and exed in many cases. Where is compassion if 2x2 is the jesus way??
|
|
|
Post by more bitter on May 3, 2008 10:41:05 GMT -5
Who on this board comes across more bitter and twisted than Calledunto liberty? So much for his liberty! Why so angry and blinlered, man?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 3, 2008 20:24:06 GMT -5
Why not be blindlered!
|
|