Taking care of aging parents

by skeeter1 29 Replies latest jw friends

  • tootired2care

    I think the principal that they need to reap what they've sown, really applies here. Bailing the folks and old people in the congregation out robs them of the important lesson that their religion has failed them.

    Jesus' advice at Matt 6:33 is among the most irresponsible advice ever given, and an indictment of Christianity in general.

  • Finkelstein

    The point Skeeter1 is making is a valid one, one that I can see even within my own family.

    Many JWS took low paying jobs or didn't pursue a career that would provide for themselves as they

    came into retirement age, instead many pioneered believing the fraudulent bogus doctrines the WTS.

    made up about the " Last Days " and its better to serve Jehovah and appease him by distributing their literature.

  • Finkelstein

    On the other hand parents that showed much love care and attention to their children as they were in

    their care, usually have children that as the've grown into adulthood themselves recognize and

    appreciate what was done to them and want to duly return that love and care toward their aging parents.

  • a watcher
    a watcher

    carla, to answer your question, yes.

    Paragraph 8 on page 21 states: "...adult Christian children have an obligation to make sure that their parents' material needs are met. Paul was discussing believing relatives, but parents who are not members of the Christian congregation should not be neglected."

  • Separation of Powers
    Separation of Powers

    Very good points.

    If Jesus condemned people in his day for claiming that all they had was dedicated as "corban" so they didn't have the means to provide for their aged parents. I wonder if he condemns those that believed the drivel from back in 1969 as an "excuse" for not having the means to help their parents today.

    Utter foolishness!


  • Finkelstein

    If the WTS. didn't lie and bullshit so much about the world coming to an end, maybe seniors today might

    be able to care better for themselves rather than burden that responsibility on to their off spring who probably

    have their own children to look after now.


    There are many circumstances of sociological behavior that occur in reality that the WTS. dismissed instead

    they BS the public that they were god's solemnly chosen organization and people would be wise to be

    a subjective follower of their made up organization.

  • Finkelstein

    I say let the people who loved the WTS organization much more than their own children, who've shun their children

    let the WTS. look after them in their advancing years.

    The love you give is the love you receive.

    I know people my age who have JWS parents, who have shunned them for decades, its not be unrealist to think

    that those off spring are not going to be too empathic to care for their now elderly parents.


    There's a piece of reality that your not ever going to read in the Watchtower or Awake.

  • Wild_Thing

    The JWs never believed they would need to be taken care. They never believed they would need a retirement, which is why my mother is now retired, collecting only social security and doesn't have two nickels to rub together. She is 65. Could she get a part time job to supplement her income? Sure! But then she couldn't act like a poor old single JW sister living in poverty so she can regular pioneer. These are the conditions of people that they celebrate the most.


    I hear that a recent talk was about taking care of one's aging parents. I agree.

    Generally, kids should take care of aging parents. But, isn't it funny coming from the Society's mouth?

    Wasn't it the Society who told us kids to not plan for our parents getting old?

    Wasn't it the Society that told the parents that they would never get old and die?

    .............Do you have any Idea,how long it took the WBT$..

    ...........To Suck all that Money Out of your Old JW Parents?!!..

    ...........................We`re Not Giving It Back!..LOL!!.......................................... Your an AssH*le!!..


    ...................................................................................  photo mutley-ani1.gif...OUTLAW

  • BackseatDevil

    Aging parents is a topic of conversation where I drastically trail off JW standards (and probably off that of public opinion as well). I do not, under any circumstances, feel that a child should be required to care for their aging parents... at all.

    If the parent was a loving parent, good to the child and others... then upon that time the child would willingly want to help the parent, aid where they can, etc. However, this is the child's choice. One would hope they raised a child to just naturally make that decision... this is understandable.

    If the parent was not a loving parent and the source of harmful memories, it should be considered morally reprehensible to require the (now grown and moved on) child to relive times of pain and tragedy while also assuming MORE pain and tragedy, resentment and anger simply because of biological standing.

    On the other hand, if the parents are nice and the children are wicked, why expose the seniors to the horrible acts of their childrens during their golden years? How is that of any comfort or help with their final memories here on this planet?

    With aging, like other areas of life, personal responsibility is key. If you do not have children, what do you do? You think ahead, save money to a retirement, and set up a plan for yourself to be taken care of with whatever you have available to you.

    So why should this be any different whether you have children or not?

    Warren Buffett is giving all his money to charity. What is he giving his grandkids? He paid for their education and a place to live, nothing more. Why? “There’s no reason why future generations of little Buffetts should command society just because they came from the right womb. Where’s the justice in that?” he said.

    I feel the same way going the other direction as well. There is no reason why an older person should just assume they will be taken care of just because their womb gave birth to the right person. I find it selfish and irresponsible. The WHOLE POINT of being a decent Christian is to do good and thus you will never be in a situation where you are dependent on just ONE avenue of assistance (i.e. children).

    It's like other forms of generosity - yes, we HOPE taking care of one's parenets would be done (in an ideal situation), but upon it being expected, demanded, or required, then it ceases being loving, natural, and right. So I honestly do not see why this is ever brought up by the WTBTS when there are millions of people growing old without children who have to face these years on their own. This seems like a very mean assumption to put on those who never had, or who have lost their children. I think there is a better, more efficient and respectful way of handling ALL the elderly ones in our lives rather than boxing B.C.E. family arrangements into 21st century appropriateness.

    And a hell of a lot nicer too. It's why we should all think about things like volunteering at a seniors center and such if we can.

Share this