Mixed emotions. I think Rascal has love and mercy but I can't see continued hatred of Victor Paul Wierwille as being a good thing, even though folks did get hurt. Hate is a real strong blinding emotion and as you know, can come from betrayal. I think Rascal feels betrayed and devastated by the sins of VP, and manifests continued hate through that emotion. I believe the feelings are real and genuine. However, where does it say that it is a godly Christian thing to engage in continued hatred caused by betrayal?
You know, I believe it can even be an obsession, this continued hate of VP. It's like a dead cockroach on the linoleum. For crying out loud, the cockroach is dead and doesn't have to bother you anymore. But over and over every day, day in and day out, you smash the cockroach. You look at it, morning, noon, and night, and offer smashes every chance you get. You keep on smashing and pulverizing, smashing it into the linoleum. Unrelentingly. Crushed and smashed, morning, noon and night, every day, on and on. Continued hatred of VP is like that, like smashing a dead cockroach in linoleum.
Would you continue to LOVE a dead cockaroach...?
Are you positive that she feels hate? That's a lot to lay at someone's feet...
Mixed emotions. I think Rascal has love and mercy but I can't see continued hatred of Victor Paul Wierwille as being a good thing, even though folks did get hurt. Hate is a real strong blinding emotion and as you know, can come from betrayal. I think Rascal feels betrayed and devastated by the sins of VP, and manifests continued hate through that emotion. I believe the feelings are real and genuine. However, where does it say that it is a godly Christian thing to engage in continued hatred caused by betrayal?
You know, I believe it can even be an obsession, this continued hate of VP. It's like a dead cockroach on the linoleum. For crying out loud, the cockroach is dead and doesn't have to bother you anymore. But over and over every day, day in and day out, you smash the cockroach. You look at it, morning, noon, and night, and offer smashes every chance you get. You keep on smashing and pulverizing, smashing it into the linoleum. Unrelentingly. Crushed and smashed, morning, noon and night, every day, on and on. Continued hatred of VP is like that, like smashing a dead cockroach in linoleum.
Soooo...vp's a cockroach? Or did I miss something? On the other hand I cant remember a story anywhere by anyone that claimed a cockroach drugged and raped them. But I do know that their are stories about vp doing that. I personally am not a big fan of rapists, having met several hundred of varying types throughout my career. Nope...in fact I can honestly say that their whole outlook on life or rather the way that they look at or view their victims is disgusting and makes me nauseous (that's pretty hard for a shark). I dont think that Rascal "hates" anyone, I think she simply feels the deep seated revulsion that any normal, healthy person would feel towards a rapist. So in her disgust if she wishes to continue to squash the little bugger..well I say "more power to you!"
The evil shark from all hell will now go troll other waters and find some food to devour. All this talk about "squashing" and nausea has made me hungry.
Thanks guys, these folks have been trying to paint me with the *hate* brush for a long time.
You nailed it, revulsion that a father figure could do that to a trusting young soul....That someone who claimed to represent God would destroy reputations and credibility....infuriates me....so many things about the betrayal of this man are wrong on so many levels....what he stole from us...what he stole from God....what we were deprived of....fills me with complete and utter disgust....but hate..I dunno, that`s a pretty strong word lol
quote: Abi, would you not find in some college courses graphic depictions of sexual behavior? I'm just asking -- I've never been to college.
Actually, I think there's more chance of graphic descriptions of sexual behavior happening at the student center than in a class.
Abigail: So what was LCMs believer family class like? Did it show pictures?
I thought CFS was beautiful. I took it 3 times. The first time was at a motel next to a Baptist convention with Donny Fugit running it. Primo! At the end of the class a 70 something man took the hand of a 35 year old family corps woman and placed it on his pants where was an erection and calmly said to her, "Ain't had one of these in 20 years." He got some personal healing during the class and shared it with her and IT WAS NO BIG DEAL!!! That's what was beautiful: the atmosphere, not the pictures or the slang terms for body parts.
The 3rd time I took it was in somebody's basement and there were 3 sets of parent/child taking the class. All VP wanted was to address sexual issues in a bible related class without the oppressive heavy handed atmosphere that dominated most of Christianity and western culture for centuries.
Comparing VP to a cockroach or to Jeffrey Dahmer is beyond absurd. Oldies was comparing Rascal's object of hate to a cockroach, not VP. Rascal's laid a lot of things at others' feet, Dooj. VP's true legacy is the accuracy of God's word. AND, there's been at least as much personal eyewitness testimony of that here as the other stuff. So what if he showed porno at a root locale. If you want to teach your own kids that sex and the human body are evil, then go ahead.
quote: Abi, would you not find in some college courses graphic depictions of sexual behavior? I'm just asking -- I've never been to college.
Actually, I think there's more chance of graphic descriptions of sexual behavior happening at the student center than in a class.
Yes but 14 year olds don't go to college. And I'm referring to VP showing the "doggy video" to a room full of family corps, teens in tow, at a pajama party.
VP's true legacy is the accuracy of God's word.
Only to the extent that what he taught was accurate...
Rape is a strong word, too
Yes it is. In this case, the eyewitnesses were also the victims. Ask them if the word is strong enough to describe the pain they endured.
Do you honestly not see something amiss in the scenario you described involving the man who placed a young lady's hand on his genitals and proclaimed his sexual arousal?
That's not "healing" John, that's sexual imposition.
If you watch the news at all, it should come as no surprise to you that his age is a moot point.
As far as comparing CF&S to what goes on in a college classroom or on campus, I just don't see the relevance of drawing a comparison.
We are not discussing what goes on at colleges, we are discussing what took place in a TWI sanctioned class.
You said all VP wanted to do was address sexual issues -------etc.
What exactly were these "sexual issues" he addressed and what was their relevance to "Biblical research"?
I did take a class in college called Courtship and Marriage. It was at a catholic College, and it did go into sexual satisfaction in marriage. The book was detailed as far as the sex act aspect. I don't recall any part of the class being embarrassing.
Natural methods of birth control like the mucous method were taught. We read various books, had discussion groups, wrote papers, did role playing. There were no pictures shown to the entire class of body parts, no slang terms that I recall. As far as I know, no one got aroused during the presentation of class materials. Certainly no one touched anothers private parts during the class!
One guy got pretty hot during the rape discussion in our group, but it looked like anger to me...it puzzled me at that time, stil kind of does. He kept drilling the girls on what they would do if a guy didn't listen when they said no. No matter what one said, he kept going back to it. That was kind of creepy to me. Couldn't tell why he was so intense. Now I wonder if he wasn't 'fishing' for a certain response to target someone...
It was a very interesting class, with alot of discussion which showed different view points in the class, which consisted of a pretty homogeneous group of mostly Montana raised Catholic kids, mostly from Butte.
There was no it's 'okay to enjoy sex' message in it--it was assumed that we knew it was okay to enjoy sex(it was the 70s)--in marriage. I'm pretty sure they were trying to get the 'in marriage' message hammered in. There was no doubt on that qualification.
Speaking as a mom--I wouldn't mind if my kids took the college class I took at fourteen. It was informative, respectful. It didn't cover birth control or premarital sex, or stds but I didn't expect it would at that time, though I would expect it now.
CF&S--I found it embarassing, and I was not a young virgin at the time. I didn't need the pictures to improve my sex life. What was that about anyway? WHy the visuals? To make us unshockable? To be different and controversial?
I'd imagine a 14 yr old girl might be very uncomfortable. I wouldn't want my kids in it.
Do you honestly not see something amiss in the scenario you described involving the man who placed a young lady's hand on his genitals and proclaimed his sexual arousal?
That's not "healing" John, that's sexual imposition.
Waysider, you might as well have lived in the dark ages. First of all, I didn't say the man put her hand on his genitals; I said he put it on his pants. Second, I didn't say he was sexually aroused at the woman; I said he claimed to have not had an erection at ALL in 20 years. This means that, upon having one while sitting through the class, he felt that God healed and blessed him by showing him that his body still works. You inferred all that negative stuff...thinking evil are we?
Think about it. Any doctor will tell you that a normal person can have sex into his/her 80s. So if this man couldn't have an erection from his 50s to his 70s, then something was wrong; first some kind of sin consciousness, then the medical aspect of it. But he sat through the class in that beautiful atmosphere that your dark ages mode can't comprehend, and God blessed him. He took the woman's hand and said what he did without thinking just cause he was blessed. It was perfectly innocent and the woman took it that way. As I said; NO BIG DEAL.
John, no insult intended and I am certain that you meant no disrespect to those that have been raped...but quite frankly unless you have been raped you have no idea how inadaquite that word truly is. Strong? Only to those who have no "ginosko" knowledge.
quote: John, no insult intended and I am certain that you meant no disrespect to those that have been raped...but quite frankly unless you have been raped you have no idea how inadaquite that word truly is. Strong? Only to those who have no "ginosko" knowledge.
Context. Rascal said 'hate' is a strong word, well, so is rape. First, it was rape because VP was a minister. Then, it was rape because he drugged them. Later, it was rape because he "pinned them down". This is never going to end. I think the word 'rape' really is too strong for the first example. Nowadays a woman can consent to sex and then wake up the next day ashamed and claim that she did not consent.
Just for the record, I have been sexually assaulted twice, once at 18 and once at 20, so I 'ginosko' the feeling of shame and self loathing I felt.
Context. Rascal said 'hate' is a strong word, well, so is rape. First, it was rape because VP was a minister. Then, it was rape because he drugged them. Later, it was rape because he "pinned them down". This is never going to end. I think the word 'rape' really is too strong for the first example. Nowadays a woman can consent to sex and then wake up the next day ashamed and claim that she did not consent.
Just for the record, I have been sexually assaulted twice, once at 18 and once at 20, so I 'ginosko' the feeling of shame and self loathing I felt.
This tells me something that makes me wonder...
You actually prove my point with your argument. "Hate" is a strong word but it does not compare to the word "rape" and the act of rape is not adequitely described in the word.
Waysider, you might as well have lived in the dark ages.
Really?
First of all, I didn't say the man put her hand on his genitals; I said he put it on his pants.
Let's see what you said:
At the end of the class a 70 something man took the hand of a 35 year old family corps woman and placed it on his pants where was an erection and calmly said to her, "Ain't had one of these in 20 years."
On his pants - where was an erection. If I remember correctly, pants' cuffs don't get erections...
Were his pants laying in a corner of the room and having an erection on their own? Of course not.
You might want to mince words, but that doesn't mean the image you painted isn't clear. Either that or your initial communication was inaccurate.
...thinking evil are we?
You sure can be quick to throw around the insults...
But he sat through the class in that beautiful atmosphere that your dark ages mode can't comprehend, and God blessed him. He took the woman's hand and said what he did without thinking just cause he was blessed. It was perfectly innocent and the woman took it that way. As I said; NO BIG DEAL.
If it was NO BIG DEAL, then why did he take the woman's hand? Why are you repeating the story?
I'm assuming that the "no big deal" you're referring to is the beautiful, non-sexual, taking of her hand and putting it on his pants... So, in other words, it wasn't a big deal to her for him to do this. She wasn't embarassed or offended by this, and neither was anyone else in the room.
Something must have been a big deal - his healing, his being "blessed," or even his excitement (no pun intended.)
Is there some enlightenment here? No one wants to stay in the Dark Ages... <_<
Rape is a strong word...for a vicious cruel act perpetrated on more than one occasion to innocent young women by a perverted old fart who masqueraded as a man of God....
I thought CFS was beautiful. I took it 3 times. The first time was at a motel next to a Baptist convention with Donny Fugit running it. Primo! At the end of the class a 70 something man took the hand of a 35 year old family corps woman and placed it on his pants where was an erection and calmly said to her, "Ain't had one of these in 20 years." He got some personal healing during the class and shared it with her and IT WAS NO BIG DEAL!!! That's what was beautiful: the atmosphere, not the pictures or the slang terms for body parts.
Let's see...
70-something-year-old man takes the hand of a woman in her 30s,
"placed it on his pants where an erection was".
(Says "Ain't had one of these in 20 years.")
Johniam calls that "beautiful"
I call it INAPPROPRIATE and OPPORTUNISTIC and WRONG.
Would it have been JUST as "beautiful" if he'd demonstrated it was there by opening his pants and whipping it out?
By this kind of thinking, that's just fine too.
Most of us (possibly John, as well) would say
"That's wrong no matter what! There's no place and time that this would be appropriate to do to her!"
But it's fundamentally the same issue as what was "beautiful" as explained by John.
A man took the hand of a woman not his wife (and, presumably, not even in some sort of similar intimate
relationship of fornication), and placed it on his pants over his erect penis.
No matter WHAT he said after that, before that, or during that, it's WRONG.
(Apparently in public, too- since John knew it happened.)
However, that which is wrong, inappropriate, lewd or lascivious is EXCUSED in a twi atmosphere if it's endorsed.
There,
being appropriate in conduct is wrong, it's prudish, it's "teaching the human body is evil",
and doing things all other Christians everywhere would call inappropriate, lewd or lascivious is
"BEAUTIFUL."
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
The 3rd time I took it was in somebody's basement and there were 3 sets of parent/child taking the class. All VP wanted was to address sexual issues in a bible related class without the oppressive heavy handed atmosphere that dominated most of Christianity and western culture for centuries.
That's what we were told, which is why parents and CHILDREN took this class.
However, the claims don't match up- neither to the exaggerations of what was taught to kids
AND ADULTS outside of twi- nor to what other Christians learned in other formats-
nor in what was taught in the CFS.
So what if he showed porno at a root locale. If you want to teach your own kids that sex and the human body are evil, then go ahead.
This is the kind of dysfunctional "black and white" thinking that characterizes the damaged processes
inside of places like twi.
"Either it's ok to show porn to teens, or you're teaching that the human body is evil!!!!!111111!!!"
How about there being some APPROACHES that are good, and some APPROACHES that are not?
Outside of twi and ex-twi, this is NOT hard to see. At certain ages, some things can be taught.
At the same ages, some things should NOT be taught.
===
Since we're discussing vpw, perversion and what's "beautiful",
one of our posters was in the corps and sat through when vpw HIMSELF was going into detail concerning some
imaginary African tribe where the fathers teach the pre-teen daughters about sex, and went into some
specifics about something they did which involved putting their hands on their daughters.
(No I'm not retyping it.) vpw called THAT "beautiful" after bringing it up.
Still consider that "educational" as well,
or do you think it was inappropriate to discuss that with the corps at all?
Was it "beautiful" that some fathers of vpw's invention put their hands on their preteen daughters to teach
then about sex?
vpw said it was so- is claiming otherwise "thinking evil?"
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
The Dark Ages... <_<
BTW - there have been children raised in TWI who have publically noted that they were embarassed beyond measure by having to sit through CF&S.
Think about it. Any doctor will tell you that a normal person can have sex into his/her 80s. So if this man couldn't have an erection from his 50s to his 70s, then something was wrong; first some kind of sin consciousness, then the medical aspect of it. But he sat through the class in that beautiful atmosphere that your dark ages mode can't comprehend, and God blessed him. He took the woman's hand and said what he did without thinking just cause he was blessed. It was perfectly innocent and the woman took it that way. As I said; NO BIG DEAL.
Well, accuse me of being in the dark ages, but I think there is NOTHING perfectly innocent about a man behaving in such an inappropriate manner with a woman who is not his wife or even his girlfriend in a public setting. Heck, I would have found it inappropriate even if the woman HAD been his wife and it was in a public settting.
I wonder Johniam, if you would have found it so perfectly beautiful if the woman had been your wife? I wonder how your wife would have felt had she been the woman? I dunno, maybe both of you would have been fine with that, I sure as hell would not have been.
I'm wondering how old John was when he first took this class. It may be that he was young (late teens) and he was told it was beautiful. If that time of his life in TWI was real positive (and with D F#git around, I bet John has a lot of cool memories and stories) then perhaps those good feelings are coloring this memory and painting it with a positive brush-stroke.
But it was still inappropriate. Someone just took that jar of pickles and stuck a "Peachy-keen" label on it.
I tuned out of this thread for quite a while... I see that it's now "A few big things I learned in CFS, and do you still believe them?" Reading johniam's "beautiful" comment is a shocker to me. It was no big deal? That was "healing"? Man, I do not get that at all.
What a bizarre place this is. And yet, I'm glad that some of the swordfighting is being done.
I don't remember any big things that I learned and still believe from the CFS class, though I took it a number of times. I do remember at some point post-TWI, that I taught some teens some of the things that were in that class, and a few days later I called them together again and apologised to them because I felt convicted in my heart that I was wrong... I don't even remember what the bad doctrine was... maybe something to do with masturbation or something, but it was clear to me that I needed to wake up, and I felt I did, and apologised. One of the teens asked me in that second meeting to be specific about what I shared with them that was wrong, and I did. Wish I could remember now what it was... maybe I've repressed it out of shame.
I loved Dr. Wierwille. I knew he wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but I loved the heck out of him. Even today, I love him and cherish what I still admire about him, but I've had to reckon with his shortcomings more carefully in regard to both doctrine and practice. CFS in my opinion, was a bad class. So was PFAL for that matter. Both were bold and strident, but both missed the mark. On the one hand, CFS (in my opinion) did not paint a godly picture of what a Christian family should be about, and what sex should be about. PFAL did not teach us how to properly handle the Scriptures, how to relate to God, nor His Son, nor "the world." There was some good there that I've tried to keep, but so much hooey. I'm on topic, right?
Wow, squirrel! You were right there with the perfect photo! LOL
I was going to put a PS, but since you granted me grace against a double post....
I want to go on record that I've become extremely fond of Oldiesman, Dooj, EyesOpen, and rascal. (I adored Abigail from the first moment I met her! And T-Bone and Socks? Who couldn't love them?)
edited to say... and who could not love George Aar?
John, or Jean (you two give the "one flesh" concept meaning :)) I must admit that I've been somewhat puzzled by your sharing of the story of the 70 yr old man. Giving you the benefit of a doubt I thought maybe you just poorly phrased what transpired. In the initial post you said:
At the end of the class a 70 something man took the hand of a 35 year old family corps woman and placed it on his pants where was an erection and calmly said to her, "Ain't had one of these in 20 years." He got some personal healing during the class and shared it with her and IT WAS NO BIG DEAL!!!
Can you see how one could conclude that the man placed her hand on his genitals? Although I can likewise see how placing her hand in the general vicinity could draw her attention to the obvious erection.
<snip> He took the woman's hand and said what he did without thinking just cause he was blessed. It was perfectly innocent and the woman took it that way. As I said; NO BIG DEAL.
I can accept this. We all do and say things without thinking. But it's not unreasonable to think this was inappropriate behavior. I think you realize this also or else you wouldn't have said -- "without thinking".
I wonder -- Would you think it a bit odd if the man took another man's hand and did the same?
I'm not trying to be critical (judgmental) but I must admit I can see how people might find such behavior inappropriate.
I want to go on record that I've become extremely fond of Oldiesman, Dooj, EyesOpen, and rascal. (I adored Abigail from the first moment I met her! And T-Bone and Socks? Who couldn't love them?)
edited to say... and who could not love George Aar?
We're all so cute! Well - all except for George Aar. ;)
If you are a man, do not, in a public setting, take a woman's hand and put it on your pants in a bid to call attention to your erection. Ever.
If you are a man experiencing an erection in public, keep it to yourself. No one needs to know how "blessed" you are. If you are at a swing club, cool. If you are at CHURCH, remain seated. And if it lasts more than four hours, congratulations.
If you are a man, particularly a Bible instructor, the showing of pornography, particularly involving bestiality, is ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS. At ALL times.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
118
103
143
114
Popular Days
Aug 4
146
Jul 30
140
Jul 31
123
Aug 1
99
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 118 posts
oldiesman 103 posts
doojable 143 posts
Larry N Moore 114 posts
Popular Days
Aug 4 2007
146 posts
Jul 30 2007
140 posts
Jul 31 2007
123 posts
Aug 1 2007
99 posts
Popular Posts
Mark Clarke
I still believe those few things, with one qualification. We were taught we didn't go to heaven "right away" as you put it. But they were rather vague about what happens in the end. I believe we do
Catcup
Since leaving TWI, I have kind of devolved back almost to where my beliefs were just before getting into TWI. Although in my family we were raised Southern Baptist, we never believed Jesus was God.
GrouchoMarxJr
Unlike oldies, I believe that the majority of what was taught in pfal was wrong... However, as a Christian, I do believe in "eventual" eternal life and I believe that Jesus was the son of God and not
doojable
Would you continue to LOVE a dead cockaroach...?
Are you positive that she feels hate? That's a lot to lay at someone's feet...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Soooo...vp's a cockroach? Or did I miss something? On the other hand I cant remember a story anywhere by anyone that claimed a cockroach drugged and raped them. But I do know that their are stories about vp doing that. I personally am not a big fan of rapists, having met several hundred of varying types throughout my career. Nope...in fact I can honestly say that their whole outlook on life or rather the way that they look at or view their victims is disgusting and makes me nauseous (that's pretty hard for a shark). I dont think that Rascal "hates" anyone, I think she simply feels the deep seated revulsion that any normal, healthy person would feel towards a rapist. So in her disgust if she wishes to continue to squash the little bugger..well I say "more power to you!"
The evil shark from all hell will now go troll other waters and find some food to devour. All this talk about "squashing" and nausea has made me hungry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Thanks guys, these folks have been trying to paint me with the *hate* brush for a long time.
You nailed it, revulsion that a father figure could do that to a trusting young soul....That someone who claimed to represent God would destroy reputations and credibility....infuriates me....so many things about the betrayal of this man are wrong on so many levels....what he stole from us...what he stole from God....what we were deprived of....fills me with complete and utter disgust....but hate..I dunno, that`s a pretty strong word lol
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Abi, would you not find in some college courses graphic depictions of sexual behavior? I'm just asking -- I've never been to college.
Actually, I think there's more chance of graphic descriptions of sexual behavior happening at the student center than in a class.
Abigail: So what was LCMs believer family class like? Did it show pictures?
I thought CFS was beautiful. I took it 3 times. The first time was at a motel next to a Baptist convention with Donny Fugit running it. Primo! At the end of the class a 70 something man took the hand of a 35 year old family corps woman and placed it on his pants where was an erection and calmly said to her, "Ain't had one of these in 20 years." He got some personal healing during the class and shared it with her and IT WAS NO BIG DEAL!!! That's what was beautiful: the atmosphere, not the pictures or the slang terms for body parts.
The 3rd time I took it was in somebody's basement and there were 3 sets of parent/child taking the class. All VP wanted was to address sexual issues in a bible related class without the oppressive heavy handed atmosphere that dominated most of Christianity and western culture for centuries.
Comparing VP to a cockroach or to Jeffrey Dahmer is beyond absurd. Oldies was comparing Rascal's object of hate to a cockroach, not VP. Rascal's laid a lot of things at others' feet, Dooj. VP's true legacy is the accuracy of God's word. AND, there's been at least as much personal eyewitness testimony of that here as the other stuff. So what if he showed porno at a root locale. If you want to teach your own kids that sex and the human body are evil, then go ahead.
Rape is a strong word, too
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Yes but 14 year olds don't go to college. And I'm referring to VP showing the "doggy video" to a room full of family corps, teens in tow, at a pajama party.
Only to the extent that what he taught was accurate...Yes it is. In this case, the eyewitnesses were also the victims. Ask them if the word is strong enough to describe the pain they endured.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Johniam
Do you honestly not see something amiss in the scenario you described involving the man who placed a young lady's hand on his genitals and proclaimed his sexual arousal?
That's not "healing" John, that's sexual imposition.
If you watch the news at all, it should come as no surprise to you that his age is a moot point.
As far as comparing CF&S to what goes on in a college classroom or on campus, I just don't see the relevance of drawing a comparison.
We are not discussing what goes on at colleges, we are discussing what took place in a TWI sanctioned class.
You said all VP wanted to do was address sexual issues -------etc.
What exactly were these "sexual issues" he addressed and what was their relevance to "Biblical research"?
Just asking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I did take a class in college called Courtship and Marriage. It was at a catholic College, and it did go into sexual satisfaction in marriage. The book was detailed as far as the sex act aspect. I don't recall any part of the class being embarrassing.
Natural methods of birth control like the mucous method were taught. We read various books, had discussion groups, wrote papers, did role playing. There were no pictures shown to the entire class of body parts, no slang terms that I recall. As far as I know, no one got aroused during the presentation of class materials. Certainly no one touched anothers private parts during the class!
One guy got pretty hot during the rape discussion in our group, but it looked like anger to me...it puzzled me at that time, stil kind of does. He kept drilling the girls on what they would do if a guy didn't listen when they said no. No matter what one said, he kept going back to it. That was kind of creepy to me. Couldn't tell why he was so intense. Now I wonder if he wasn't 'fishing' for a certain response to target someone...
It was a very interesting class, with alot of discussion which showed different view points in the class, which consisted of a pretty homogeneous group of mostly Montana raised Catholic kids, mostly from Butte.
There was no it's 'okay to enjoy sex' message in it--it was assumed that we knew it was okay to enjoy sex(it was the 70s)--in marriage. I'm pretty sure they were trying to get the 'in marriage' message hammered in. There was no doubt on that qualification.
Speaking as a mom--I wouldn't mind if my kids took the college class I took at fourteen. It was informative, respectful. It didn't cover birth control or premarital sex, or stds but I didn't expect it would at that time, though I would expect it now.
CF&S--I found it embarassing, and I was not a young virgin at the time. I didn't need the pictures to improve my sex life. What was that about anyway? WHy the visuals? To make us unshockable? To be different and controversial?
I'd imagine a 14 yr old girl might be very uncomfortable. I wouldn't want my kids in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Johniam
Do you honestly not see something amiss in the scenario you described involving the man who placed a young lady's hand on his genitals and proclaimed his sexual arousal?
That's not "healing" John, that's sexual imposition.
Waysider, you might as well have lived in the dark ages. First of all, I didn't say the man put her hand on his genitals; I said he put it on his pants. Second, I didn't say he was sexually aroused at the woman; I said he claimed to have not had an erection at ALL in 20 years. This means that, upon having one while sitting through the class, he felt that God healed and blessed him by showing him that his body still works. You inferred all that negative stuff...thinking evil are we?
Think about it. Any doctor will tell you that a normal person can have sex into his/her 80s. So if this man couldn't have an erection from his 50s to his 70s, then something was wrong; first some kind of sin consciousness, then the medical aspect of it. But he sat through the class in that beautiful atmosphere that your dark ages mode can't comprehend, and God blessed him. He took the woman's hand and said what he did without thinking just cause he was blessed. It was perfectly innocent and the woman took it that way. As I said; NO BIG DEAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
John, no insult intended and I am certain that you meant no disrespect to those that have been raped...but quite frankly unless you have been raped you have no idea how inadaquite that word truly is. Strong? Only to those who have no "ginosko" knowledge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: John, no insult intended and I am certain that you meant no disrespect to those that have been raped...but quite frankly unless you have been raped you have no idea how inadaquite that word truly is. Strong? Only to those who have no "ginosko" knowledge.
Context. Rascal said 'hate' is a strong word, well, so is rape. First, it was rape because VP was a minister. Then, it was rape because he drugged them. Later, it was rape because he "pinned them down". This is never going to end. I think the word 'rape' really is too strong for the first example. Nowadays a woman can consent to sex and then wake up the next day ashamed and claim that she did not consent.
Just for the record, I have been sexually assaulted twice, once at 18 and once at 20, so I 'ginosko' the feeling of shame and self loathing I felt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
This tells me something that makes me wonder...
You actually prove my point with your argument. "Hate" is a strong word but it does not compare to the word "rape" and the act of rape is not adequitely described in the word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Really?
Let's see what you said:On his pants - where was an erection. If I remember correctly, pants' cuffs don't get erections...
Were his pants laying in a corner of the room and having an erection on their own? Of course not.
You might want to mince words, but that doesn't mean the image you painted isn't clear. Either that or your initial communication was inaccurate.
You sure can be quick to throw around the insults...If it was NO BIG DEAL, then why did he take the woman's hand? Why are you repeating the story?
I'm assuming that the "no big deal" you're referring to is the beautiful, non-sexual, taking of her hand and putting it on his pants... So, in other words, it wasn't a big deal to her for him to do this. She wasn't embarassed or offended by this, and neither was anyone else in the room.
Something must have been a big deal - his healing, his being "blessed," or even his excitement (no pun intended.)
Is there some enlightenment here? No one wants to stay in the Dark Ages... <_<
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Rape is a strong word...for a vicious cruel act perpetrated on more than one occasion to innocent young women by a perverted old fart who masqueraded as a man of God....
I do hate that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Let's see...
70-something-year-old man takes the hand of a woman in her 30s,
"placed it on his pants where an erection was".
(Says "Ain't had one of these in 20 years.")
Johniam calls that "beautiful"
I call it INAPPROPRIATE and OPPORTUNISTIC and WRONG.
Would it have been JUST as "beautiful" if he'd demonstrated it was there by opening his pants and whipping it out?
By this kind of thinking, that's just fine too.
Most of us (possibly John, as well) would say
"That's wrong no matter what! There's no place and time that this would be appropriate to do to her!"
But it's fundamentally the same issue as what was "beautiful" as explained by John.
A man took the hand of a woman not his wife (and, presumably, not even in some sort of similar intimate
relationship of fornication), and placed it on his pants over his erect penis.
No matter WHAT he said after that, before that, or during that, it's WRONG.
(Apparently in public, too- since John knew it happened.)
However, that which is wrong, inappropriate, lewd or lascivious is EXCUSED in a twi atmosphere if it's endorsed.
There,
being appropriate in conduct is wrong, it's prudish, it's "teaching the human body is evil",
and doing things all other Christians everywhere would call inappropriate, lewd or lascivious is
"BEAUTIFUL."
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
That's what we were told, which is why parents and CHILDREN took this class.However, the claims don't match up- neither to the exaggerations of what was taught to kids
AND ADULTS outside of twi- nor to what other Christians learned in other formats-
nor in what was taught in the CFS.
This is the kind of dysfunctional "black and white" thinking that characterizes the damaged processes
inside of places like twi.
"Either it's ok to show porn to teens, or you're teaching that the human body is evil!!!!!111111!!!"
How about there being some APPROACHES that are good, and some APPROACHES that are not?
Outside of twi and ex-twi, this is NOT hard to see. At certain ages, some things can be taught.
At the same ages, some things should NOT be taught.
===
Since we're discussing vpw, perversion and what's "beautiful",
one of our posters was in the corps and sat through when vpw HIMSELF was going into detail concerning some
imaginary African tribe where the fathers teach the pre-teen daughters about sex, and went into some
specifics about something they did which involved putting their hands on their daughters.
(No I'm not retyping it.) vpw called THAT "beautiful" after bringing it up.
Still consider that "educational" as well,
or do you think it was inappropriate to discuss that with the corps at all?
Was it "beautiful" that some fathers of vpw's invention put their hands on their preteen daughters to teach
then about sex?
vpw said it was so- is claiming otherwise "thinking evil?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
The Dark Ages... <_<
BTW - there have been children raised in TWI who have publically noted that they were embarassed beyond measure by having to sit through CF&S.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well, accuse me of being in the dark ages, but I think there is NOTHING perfectly innocent about a man behaving in such an inappropriate manner with a woman who is not his wife or even his girlfriend in a public setting. Heck, I would have found it inappropriate even if the woman HAD been his wife and it was in a public settting.
I wonder Johniam, if you would have found it so perfectly beautiful if the woman had been your wife? I wonder how your wife would have felt had she been the woman? I dunno, maybe both of you would have been fine with that, I sure as hell would not have been.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm wondering how old John was when he first took this class. It may be that he was young (late teens) and he was told it was beautiful. If that time of his life in TWI was real positive (and with D F#git around, I bet John has a lot of cool memories and stories) then perhaps those good feelings are coloring this memory and painting it with a positive brush-stroke.
But it was still inappropriate. Someone just took that jar of pickles and stuck a "Peachy-keen" label on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I tuned out of this thread for quite a while... I see that it's now "A few big things I learned in CFS, and do you still believe them?" Reading johniam's "beautiful" comment is a shocker to me. It was no big deal? That was "healing"? Man, I do not get that at all.
What a bizarre place this is. And yet, I'm glad that some of the swordfighting is being done.
I don't remember any big things that I learned and still believe from the CFS class, though I took it a number of times. I do remember at some point post-TWI, that I taught some teens some of the things that were in that class, and a few days later I called them together again and apologised to them because I felt convicted in my heart that I was wrong... I don't even remember what the bad doctrine was... maybe something to do with masturbation or something, but it was clear to me that I needed to wake up, and I felt I did, and apologised. One of the teens asked me in that second meeting to be specific about what I shared with them that was wrong, and I did. Wish I could remember now what it was... maybe I've repressed it out of shame.
I loved Dr. Wierwille. I knew he wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but I loved the heck out of him. Even today, I love him and cherish what I still admire about him, but I've had to reckon with his shortcomings more carefully in regard to both doctrine and practice. CFS in my opinion, was a bad class. So was PFAL for that matter. Both were bold and strident, but both missed the mark. On the one hand, CFS (in my opinion) did not paint a godly picture of what a Christian family should be about, and what sex should be about. PFAL did not teach us how to properly handle the Scriptures, how to relate to God, nor His Son, nor "the world." There was some good there that I've tried to keep, but so much hooey. I'm on topic, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Hey, just another day at the Cafe..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Wow, squirrel! You were right there with the perfect photo! LOL
I was going to put a PS, but since you granted me grace against a double post....
I want to go on record that I've become extremely fond of Oldiesman, Dooj, EyesOpen, and rascal. (I adored Abigail from the first moment I met her! And T-Bone and Socks? Who couldn't love them?)
edited to say... and who could not love George Aar?
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
John, or Jean (you two give the "one flesh" concept meaning :)) I must admit that I've been somewhat puzzled by your sharing of the story of the 70 yr old man. Giving you the benefit of a doubt I thought maybe you just poorly phrased what transpired. In the initial post you said:
Can you see how one could conclude that the man placed her hand on his genitals? Although I can likewise see how placing her hand in the general vicinity could draw her attention to the obvious erection.
I can accept this. We all do and say things without thinking. But it's not unreasonable to think this was inappropriate behavior. I think you realize this also or else you wouldn't have said -- "without thinking".
I wonder -- Would you think it a bit odd if the man took another man's hand and did the same?
I'm not trying to be critical (judgmental) but I must admit I can see how people might find such behavior inappropriate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
We're all so cute! Well - all except for George Aar. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Some basic rules of etiquette:
If you are a man, do not, in a public setting, take a woman's hand and put it on your pants in a bid to call attention to your erection. Ever.
If you are a man experiencing an erection in public, keep it to yourself. No one needs to know how "blessed" you are. If you are at a swing club, cool. If you are at CHURCH, remain seated. And if it lasts more than four hours, congratulations.
If you are a man, particularly a Bible instructor, the showing of pornography, particularly involving bestiality, is ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS. At ALL times.
Call me a legalist.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Raf... we're posting at the same time... edited to include: OMG, you are so right, and so funny!
Candidate for "GreaseSpotGems".
OMG OMG, I'm dying!
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.