The first time I ever took that socalled class I had been "in" about a year and it was at a "camp" at some university in Indiana, Ball State I think. I was so disgusted I wanted to leave. The doctor I worked for, who I called long distance, and JAL talked me out of it.
Absolutely it was pornography! There are some things people don't need to see pictures of to figure out.
And people were telling me this great man of God who was so modest and had had such a strict religious upbringing and outlook had to "renew his mind" to bring us this class to bless our lives.
I could fertilize my whole garden twice with that kind of organic fertilizer!
I took that class I have the papers in my note book .
I remember where I took it and i do not remmeber vpw in it , it was taught by the BC not the LC at the time. like the renewed mind class no vpw it was walter C live and then the LC wife (i didnt take it that time)
I think I do not know this was early 80's they ran so many classes constantly in this city and surrounding areas because they had folks they wanted to go into the corps and needed them to fullfill the classes first. Is that a fact? before you entered the corps did ya have to finish all the classes?
not trying to derail. really just curious.
the manner pfal was sold to me was you aint "there" till you go into the corps and so many did right after taking pfal . or at least tried , what are the 'requirements " to go into the corps then?
Christians have sex, Christians have spit, Christians use sexual lubricants, spit is a sexual lubricant.
Nothing wrong with the statement except that one's saliva shouldn't be used when the mouth has an active mouth infection.
I believe what is being objected to here is not so much the validity or viability of saliva as a sexual lubricant, or whether Christians have sexual relations but rather the format in which it was openly presented and misrepresented as being relevant to Biblical research and teaching.
I believe what is being objected to here is not so much the validity or viability of saliva as a sexual lubricant, or whether Christians have sexual relations but rather the format in which it was openly presented and misrepresented as being relevant to Biblical research and teaching.
Exactly.
There would be absolutely nothing wrong with TWI making available a booklet on marital relations, offered to married and soon-to-be married couples. What was absolutely wrong was showing the material graphically to everyone. Along with the implication that TWI and VPW should be your primary source of information on the subject. I can't believe how cheesy it was.
Put your memory beanies on...I know this is gross.."Just spit in your hand,It is a natural lubricant."
Huh!What did that have to do with the bible?
References to "Spit" and "hand" are both found in the Bible. Olive Oil, also mentioned in the Bible is a natural lubricant....Perhaps vp mentioned this as a matter of sexual expediency. Maybe he was semi-plagiarizing an old proverb: a spit in the hand is worth Olive Oil for the bush.
[edited for a PG-13 Rating; reader discretion is advised ]
I believe what is being objected to here is not so much the validity or viability of saliva as a sexual lubricant, or whether Christians have sexual relations but rather the format in which it was openly presented and misrepresented as being relevant to Biblical research and teaching.
No the statementt was:
Put your memory beanies on...I know this is gross.."Just spit in your hand,It is a natural lubricant."
Huh!What did that have to do with the bible?
I don't believe that it was openly presented ,last I looked one had to register for the class and pay the fee. Those two things should have made one think about what one was registering for. The class was Christian Family and Sex. I don't believe that it was ever presented as every segment every word was about the Bible. As lacking as it may have been which is another issue, there were sections that were not Bible related per say. It's foolish to imply that every word of every teaching was supposed to have some biblical referance.
what I find interesting Frank.. the "teacher" really was entirely unqualified to teach the subject to begin with..
his legitimate degree was in homiletics, was it not? And the "doctorate".. I won't even go there today..
as far as christian and family relationships, and as a COUNSELLOR, I think he was worse than a buffoon.
what counsellor, in their right or professional mind, would exhibit pornography to young adults, with the distinct possibility and more that they may be viewed by those under age? Especially the doggy video..
the troubling part is how effortlessly he described copulation, body parts, etc.. to a group a third his age..
I remember his claims how it was all so wonderful, and "kids" wouldn't have to learn about sex in the streets..
honestly, I don't see much difference. Learn about sex from a lecherous bar keeper, or learn about it from a lecherous rogue "preacher".. same difference..
I believe what is being objected to here is not so much the validity or viability of saliva as a sexual lubricant, or whether Christians have sexual relations but rather the format in which it was openly presented and misrepresented as being relevant to Biblical research and teaching.
I think you're right, Waysider – its very title "Christian Family & Sex" – suggests that it was based on the Bible with the interpretation and practical applications coming from a Christianmindset. But you also have to take into account the TWImindset[which puts a weird twist on a lot of Christian ideas anyway], that assumed just about anything that came from "Doctor" [and I use that term very loosely ] was God-breathed…so, not only was it received as material relevant to Biblical Research & Teaching - the TWI mindset tended to elevate vp's doctrines as being on par with Scripture. And back then, anyone foolish enough to imply otherwise of vp's stuff would risk jeopardizing their own standing in TWI – which at minimum would have incurred a serious-talking-to.
I also remember him teaching that if a man didn't have a wife, or if for some reason his wife was unable to have sex, he "oughta learn how to masturbate." Too bad he didn't practice what he preached.
Put your memory beanies on...I know this is gross.."Just spit in your hand,It is a natural lubricant."
Huh!What did that have to do with the bible?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Docvic was (imo) looking for an excuse to view his XXX rated videos, make comments, and have people pay for the *privilege * for being there, while he sucked up the drambuie, laughed at the class, and eyed his next victim.
Anyone taking bets here?? Odds are 100 to 1 I'm right.
Hubby took a lot of TWI classes - including this one. Ironically, he never suggested I take it.
Come to think of it, he either shielded me from a lot of this stuff, or shielded TWI from me had I actually sat through something I thought was crap. There was more than one instance of attending something where I point-blank told him to never subject me to "that" again.
Gonna somewhat derail the thread by recounting an experience. There was some sort of "family" type class - maybe it was CF&S - I can't remember. I had a 7 week old nursing baby, who was with us because of what all the doctors considered was a medical miracle (or negative believing according to TWI). The twig leaders wanted us to attend the class, but I was told to leave the baby home - so he wouldn't "disrupt" the class. Now I wasn't nearly as quick on my feet then as I am now and this directive left me temporarily speechless. When I recovered, I said to the wife-leader something along the lines of: so you, who starved your baby for 2 months because you weren't smart enough to understand that when the doctor was talking about feeding every 4 hours he was talking about bottle-fed babies, are telling me to leave my 7 week old nursing baby with someone so there's no opportunity for him to possibly disrupt the class? We are recovering from a frightening experience and not only does he need to nurse on demand in order to make sure he is properly hydrated, I need to be able to nurse him for my comfort. Also, I'm not comfortable leaving my baby with anyone right now. If that's how you want to handle your family, that's fine, but I don't agree and I won't do it. The irony is that this is a "family" class and babies fall into that category. Either he comes with me or I stay home. Should he fuss, I'll leave the room with him, but I won't substitute my own common sense for someone's that took 2 months to figure out she was starving her kid. I didn't say exactly that, but close enough.
I know that was harsh, but I learned that unless you were willing to be blunt, people felt entitled to tell you how to live your life based on the number of TWI classes they had attended verses how many you had under your belt. In my mind, based on results, the number of TWI classes attended was not an accurate indicator of common sense.
So, of course I was the only one there with a baby (who slept peacefully most of the day and only woke and nursed during breaks) and was largely ignored by my fellow classmates for breaking the rules.
The very suggestion you leave a nursing infant behind is absolutely outrageous.
Of course, if the baby had become ill while you were away, you would then have bgeen castigated for "weakness" or "lack of believing" and your husband would have been encouraged to discard you and your baby like used KLeenex.
I don't think in retrospect that anything TWI promoted enriched the family - just their own coffers.
Dr. Wierwille taught that the human body is beautiful and as part of the class showed us pictures of it .... nothing wrong with nude pictures in and of themselves. This is not porn. Porn is designed to encourage lust and lasciviousness, perhaps covetousness, those are the sins we need stay away from. But viewing pics to show how beautiful the body is is nothing ... its vanilla. I don't believe VP was encouraging those sins and can't imagine someone getting caught up in lust and evil imaginations from viewing those vanilla images unless they wanted to. Similarly I suppose someone can say looking at a beautiful woman in a bikini leads to lust and lasciviousness and porn but I dont think so. (Maybe Islam says that, don't know.)
Dr. Wierwille taught that the human body is beautiful and as part of the class showed us pictures of it .... nothing wrong with nude pictures in and of themselves. This is not porn. Porn is designed to encourage lust and lasciviousness, perhaps covetousness, those are the sins we need stay away from. But viewing pics to show how beautiful the body is is nothing ... its vanilla. I don't believe VP was encouraging those sins and can't imagine someone getting caught up in lust and evil imaginations from viewing those vanilla images unless they wanted to. Similarly I suppose someone can say looking at a beautiful woman in a bikini leads to lust and lasciviousness and porn but it doesn't unless the looker is so inclined.
I disagree. It appeared that he taught that the human body is beautiful. While I have never had the experiences with leadership that some had, I have no doubt that all this "teaching" was designed to break down barriers. Why? because I know what it is like to be "groomed". I know how he looked at me and I wasn't "so inclined," but I knew what it was like to be around the "so inclined." You don't teach that the body is "beautiful" and show explicit pictures in the context of a "Christian" ministry - unless every last one of those people is married and they know up front that it's going to happen, and we know that didn't happen. I have taken Christian marriage courses where discussions about sex are frank, but not explicit, and certainly not offered to people not married along with people who are married. If this is so good, right, and pure, why is this not the way all Christian organizations handle the topic of Christian family and sex?
While you can't believe it could happen, I am amazed at how good he was at doing what he did. He operated openly and yet most never saw it, or they denied it, or turned a blind eye.
Recommended Posts
Mark Clarke
It had to do with Christian SEX and oh yeah, family....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
I know it was on sex,point being,since it was christian,should have been above board,honest.
I sat through it several times,thought it was warped then,It was more of a porno class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Out of the heart come the issues of life.
This so-called "class" was a rare opportunity for the general populace of TWI to see what was in VP's heart.
----and we didn't even realize it at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
The first time I ever took that socalled class I had been "in" about a year and it was at a "camp" at some university in Indiana, Ball State I think. I was so disgusted I wanted to leave. The doctor I worked for, who I called long distance, and JAL talked me out of it.
Absolutely it was pornography! There are some things people don't need to see pictures of to figure out.
And people were telling me this great man of God who was so modest and had had such a strict religious upbringing and outlook had to "renew his mind" to bring us this class to bless our lives.
I could fertilize my whole garden twice with that kind of organic fertilizer!
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
ok
I took that class I have the papers in my note book .
I remember where I took it and i do not remmeber vpw in it , it was taught by the BC not the LC at the time. like the renewed mind class no vpw it was walter C live and then the LC wife (i didnt take it that time)
I think I do not know this was early 80's they ran so many classes constantly in this city and surrounding areas because they had folks they wanted to go into the corps and needed them to fullfill the classes first. Is that a fact? before you entered the corps did ya have to finish all the classes?
not trying to derail. really just curious.
the manner pfal was sold to me was you aint "there" till you go into the corps and so many did right after taking pfal . or at least tried , what are the 'requirements " to go into the corps then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Christians have sex, Christians have spit, Christians use sexual lubricants, spit is a sexual lubricant.
Nothing wrong with the statement except that one's saliva shouldn't be used when the mouth has an active mouth infection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I believe what is being objected to here is not so much the validity or viability of saliva as a sexual lubricant, or whether Christians have sexual relations but rather the format in which it was openly presented and misrepresented as being relevant to Biblical research and teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
the way tried to be the authority on everything and had the ONLY truth on every topic and subject.
No organization can be the sole educator of every issue or subject . they tried to be the ony solution talk about controling what ya think .
I do not think a bible class and this type of "education" is needed . So somone has "sexual issues" so take this class? yeah not a good solution IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Exactly.
There would be absolutely nothing wrong with TWI making available a booklet on marital relations, offered to married and soon-to-be married couples. What was absolutely wrong was showing the material graphically to everyone. Along with the implication that TWI and VPW should be your primary source of information on the subject. I can't believe how cheesy it was.
Edited by JimLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
References to "Spit" and "hand" are both found in the Bible. Olive Oil, also mentioned in the Bible is a natural lubricant....Perhaps vp mentioned this as a matter of sexual expediency. Maybe he was semi-plagiarizing an old proverb: a spit in the hand is worth Olive Oil for the bush.
[edited for a PG-13 Rating; reader discretion is advised
]
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No the statementt was:
I don't believe that it was openly presented ,last I looked one had to register for the class and pay the fee. Those two things should have made one think about what one was registering for. The class was Christian Family and Sex. I don't believe that it was ever presented as every segment every word was about the Bible. As lacking as it may have been which is another issue, there were sections that were not Bible related per say. It's foolish to imply that every word of every teaching was supposed to have some biblical referance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
what I find interesting Frank.. the "teacher" really was entirely unqualified to teach the subject to begin with..
his legitimate degree was in homiletics, was it not? And the "doctorate".. I won't even go there today..
as far as christian and family relationships, and as a COUNSELLOR, I think he was worse than a buffoon.
what counsellor, in their right or professional mind, would exhibit pornography to young adults, with the distinct possibility and more that they may be viewed by those under age? Especially the doggy video..
the troubling part is how effortlessly he described copulation, body parts, etc.. to a group a third his age..
I remember his claims how it was all so wonderful, and "kids" wouldn't have to learn about sex in the streets..
honestly, I don't see much difference. Learn about sex from a lecherous bar keeper, or learn about it from a lecherous rogue "preacher".. same difference..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think you're right, Waysider – its very title "Christian Family & Sex" – suggests that it was based on the Bible with the interpretation and practical applications coming from a Christian mindset. But you also have to take into account the TWI mindset [which puts a weird twist on a lot of Christian ideas anyway], that assumed just about anything that came from "Doctor" [and I use that term very loosely
] was God-breathed…so, not only was it received as material relevant to Biblical Research & Teaching - the TWI mindset tended to elevate vp's doctrines as being on par with Scripture. And back then, anyone foolish enough to imply otherwise of vp's stuff would risk jeopardizing their own standing in TWI – which at minimum would have incurred a serious-talking-to.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I also remember him teaching that if a man didn't have a wife, or if for some reason his wife was unable to have sex, he "oughta learn how to masturbate." Too bad he didn't practice what he preached.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha hahaha ha ha ha ha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Docvic was (imo) looking for an excuse to view his XXX rated videos, make comments, and have people pay for the *privilege * for being there, while he sucked up the drambuie, laughed at the class, and eyed his next victim.
Anyone taking bets here?? Odds are 100 to 1 I'm right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Your aptitude for ignoring the OBVIOUS is only superseded by your LACK of comprehension of:
WHAT IS BEING SAID!!!
If I were you --- I'd just pack up whatever you've got, load it in your car, point it south,
and head back to New Knoxville, Oldies. You belong there.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Hubby took a lot of TWI classes - including this one. Ironically, he never suggested I take it.
Come to think of it, he either shielded me from a lot of this stuff, or shielded TWI from me had I actually sat through something I thought was crap. There was more than one instance of attending something where I point-blank told him to never subject me to "that" again.
Gonna somewhat derail the thread by recounting an experience. There was some sort of "family" type class - maybe it was CF&S - I can't remember. I had a 7 week old nursing baby, who was with us because of what all the doctors considered was a medical miracle (or negative believing according to TWI). The twig leaders wanted us to attend the class, but I was told to leave the baby home - so he wouldn't "disrupt" the class. Now I wasn't nearly as quick on my feet then as I am now and this directive left me temporarily speechless. When I recovered, I said to the wife-leader something along the lines of: so you, who starved your baby for 2 months because you weren't smart enough to understand that when the doctor was talking about feeding every 4 hours he was talking about bottle-fed babies, are telling me to leave my 7 week old nursing baby with someone so there's no opportunity for him to possibly disrupt the class? We are recovering from a frightening experience and not only does he need to nurse on demand in order to make sure he is properly hydrated, I need to be able to nurse him for my comfort. Also, I'm not comfortable leaving my baby with anyone right now. If that's how you want to handle your family, that's fine, but I don't agree and I won't do it. The irony is that this is a "family" class and babies fall into that category. Either he comes with me or I stay home. Should he fuss, I'll leave the room with him, but I won't substitute my own common sense for someone's that took 2 months to figure out she was starving her kid. I didn't say exactly that, but close enough.
I know that was harsh, but I learned that unless you were willing to be blunt, people felt entitled to tell you how to live your life based on the number of TWI classes they had attended verses how many you had under your belt. In my mind, based on results, the number of TWI classes attended was not an accurate indicator of common sense.
So, of course I was the only one there with a baby (who slept peacefully most of the day and only woke and nursed during breaks) and was largely ignored by my fellow classmates for breaking the rules.
Oh well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's not off topic at all T.
This was supposed to be a Biblically oriented class that we thought would enrich our family lives.
Last time I checked, babies(and children) are a very important component of many families.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
what about another statement.. "the way to a man's heart is through his penis.."
where is THAT in the bible?
maybe that was true for the vicster himself.. but I wouldn't want to be painted with the same brush..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Whacked out sayings,To say the least,This crap was an intro into the world of porn,Where in the hell did any of this stuff
help us in our reationships between brother and sister in Christ?I mean did any of you say to the opposite sex.hey
lets talk about different positions of sex?Or hey gal you are too uptight,lighten up.
One that got me were the pictures,like,why are we talking about a womens breast,and showng diferent shapes,with ole
sick vic making comments,you women should not be ashamed if you are a little different look.
Moderators,I did not bring this stuff up to be gross.I just feel it should be brought out and discussed.
To say we are won derfully and awesomely made is one thing,The material was not suited to a general audience.
I have heard the corps cfs was really in depth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Tzaia, YOU ROCK!!!!
The very suggestion you leave a nursing infant behind is absolutely outrageous.
Of course, if the baby had become ill while you were away, you would then have bgeen castigated for "weakness" or "lack of believing" and your husband would have been encouraged to discard you and your baby like used KLeenex.
I don't think in retrospect that anything TWI promoted enriched the family - just their own coffers.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Dr. Wierwille taught that the human body is beautiful and as part of the class showed us pictures of it .... nothing wrong with nude pictures in and of themselves. This is not porn. Porn is designed to encourage lust and lasciviousness, perhaps covetousness, those are the sins we need stay away from. But viewing pics to show how beautiful the body is is nothing ... its vanilla. I don't believe VP was encouraging those sins and can't imagine someone getting caught up in lust and evil imaginations from viewing those vanilla images unless they wanted to. Similarly I suppose someone can say looking at a beautiful woman in a bikini leads to lust and lasciviousness and porn but I dont think so. (Maybe Islam says that, don't know.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I disagree. It appeared that he taught that the human body is beautiful. While I have never had the experiences with leadership that some had, I have no doubt that all this "teaching" was designed to break down barriers. Why? because I know what it is like to be "groomed". I know how he looked at me and I wasn't "so inclined," but I knew what it was like to be around the "so inclined." You don't teach that the body is "beautiful" and show explicit pictures in the context of a "Christian" ministry - unless every last one of those people is married and they know up front that it's going to happen, and we know that didn't happen. I have taken Christian marriage courses where discussions about sex are frank, but not explicit, and certainly not offered to people not married along with people who are married. If this is so good, right, and pure, why is this not the way all Christian organizations handle the topic of Christian family and sex?
While you can't believe it could happen, I am amazed at how good he was at doing what he did. He operated openly and yet most never saw it, or they denied it, or turned a blind eye.
Edited by TzaiaLink 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.