Christian Family & Sex class

[WhiteDove]

All this *banter* back and forth about how many pages were in the syllabus for the class is moot point.

If WhiteDove has a 36 page syllabus, it existed. If Waysider has a problem with that, too bad.

Perhaps Waysider should go back to the Song Of The Day thread and post there instead.

Who cares how many pages were in the syllabus??? I've got the original 2 here at the house.

There's no God **** way I would want the other 34 pages here. So much BS, and no room for it here.

The CF&S was a fugged up piece of work that had NO MENTION of adultery in it whatsoever.

That alone should have sent red flags up to each and everyone watching/ enrolled in the class.

It was an abysmal piece of work that showcased docvic's fetishes to the general populace.

I never did get an answer to MY original question:

I couldn't agree more David

I posted a simple correction for records sake and as usual one poster wants to pick at the record, offering nothing in return to validate the claim.

I try to be very factual in what I post. Despite the fact that I just live in Kansas. Eventually some will get it that I do know what I speak of. I do so because accurate information is paramount to discussion here. Why anyone wants to argue in support of any other is beyond me. I can only surmise that the agenda must be right, is more important than factual record. that is sad.......

By the way I agree Adultery should of and could of been a valuable topic in CF & S as well as afew other things.

I just hope The song of the day thread will not end up questioning that BB King sang blues or something because of some agenda.

Now back to CFS.....The discussion.

Edited to add that in no way did I mean to imply(in case anyone thought I did) that Wordwolf was being any less than honest in his post . I believe it was an honest mistake in that he did not have access to the document to know that the two were part of a larger set of notes.

That said it does challenge and I believe invalidate his premise (based on his knwledge of pages) that it was short on substance. See below Quote.....

]It was the only class where 7 sessions made for a 2-page syllabus.

That should be a sign that it's a little sparse on substance.

In retrospect given the volume of pages correctly noted as to incorrectly noted as 2, it appears it had substance . If that substance was useful is debatable according to personal viewpoint.

Edited January 18, 2009 by WhiteDove

[potato]

according to vpw, the original sin was masturbation. according to lcm, it was homosexuality.

[dmiller]

according to vpw, the original sin was masturbation. according to lcm, it was homosexuality.

True. I saw the deleted session of the CF&S class at Hdqtrs at an *excellor session* (sp?) about masturbation.

Docvic mentioned that a lot (guess it was because he wasn't getting any),

While LCM mentioned the Homo part of it since his wife (IMO) chose Rosie over him. :D :

[dmiller]

I couldn't agree more David

I posted a simple correction for records sake and as usual one poster wants to pick at the record, offering nothing in return to validate the claim.

I try to be very factual in what I post. Despite the fact that I just live in Kansas. Eventually some will get it that I do know what I speak of. I do so because accurate information is paramount to discussion here. Why anyone wants to argue in support of any other is beyond me. I can only surmise that the agenda must be right, is more important than factual record. that is sad.......

By the way I agree Adultery should of and could of been a valuable topic in CF & S as well as afew other things.

I just hope The song of the day thread will not end up questioning that BB King sang blues or something because of some agenda.

Now back to CFS.....The discussion.

For what it's worth --- John J asked a simple question. Somehow it degenerated into a squabble about a damm syllabus,

and who got what info, and when, depending on their *status* in the ORG. To me that's a bunch of elitist BS that shows how *departmental* twi really was ---- nother words --- join the right group, get this info here that no one else has access to.

Perhaps a new thread should be started about who joined what solely to get *privileged* info,

due to their *commitment*, ABS, and die hard dedication to the fuggtard ORG selling them the

false *bill of goods* being promoted by twi. Anyone from the corps site care to comment??

Edited January 18, 2009 by dmiller

[mchud11]

For those interested in a side-discussion on abortion, we had one once in the Doctrinal forum

titled "Abortion. What does God say?"

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=11237

Feel free to start a NEW doctrinal thread on the subject, as well.

Thanks, I will definitely delve into this thread...

[WhiteDove]

For what it's worth --- John J asked a simple question. Somehow it degenerated into a squabble about a damm syllabus,

and who got what info, and when, depending on their *status* in the ORG. To me that's a bunch of elitist BS that shows how *departmental* twi really was ---- nother words --- join the right group, get this info here that no one else has access to.

Perhaps a new thread should be started about who joined what solely to get *privileged* info,

due to their *commitment*, ABS, and die hard dedication to the fuggtard ORG selling them the

false *bill of goods* being promoted by twi. Anyone from the corps site care to comment??

David

It degenerated into a squabble about a damm syllabus because some people just can't stand the fact that any information put out here is questioned, and found to be in error. It does not go well with the mission that as long as it is anti Way it is good enough. It matters not if its truthful or not.

I reject that point of view ,truth matters and I will defend it. It was a simple correction should have gone unchallenged , much like the torture of a dog but some as I said think the mission gives them the right to make error palatable. I beg to differ. As much as I may have a personal theory that Bill Clinton was not president the facts tell us that he was. My guess does not make it any different.

I can't comment on how privileged the info was, anyone that sat through the tape could write down the same notations, to me it's a friggin set of notes. That's all ! But being in existence I must truthfully represent their existence all 34 pages of them. Especially if one bases an argument on the misinformation about them. It is documentation of my point as such needs to be submitted.

[dmiller]

David

It degenerated into a squabble about a damm syllabus because some people just can't stand the fact that any information put out here is questioned, and found to be in error. It does not go well with the mission that as long as it is anti Way it is good enough. It matters not if its truthful or not.

I reject that point of view ,truth matters and I will defend it. It was a simple correction should have gone unchallenged , much like the torture of a dog but some as I said think the mission gives them the right to make error palatable. I beg to differ. As much as I may have a personal theory that Bill Clinton was not president the facts tell us that he was. My guess does not make it any different.

I can't comment on how privileged the info was, anyone that sat through the tape could write down the same notations, to me it's a friggin set of notes. That's all ! But being in existence I must truthfully represent their existence all 34 pages of them. Especially if one bases an argument on the misinformation about them. It is documentation of my point as such needs to be submitted.

Privileged info.

Kinda like twi. :blink:

[skyrider]

I took every class except dealing with the adversary (I took the lcm version defeating the adversary).

for some reason I don't remember lcm's version of christian family and sex, although I know I took it. I do remember the coulter's class. it was so awful it was one of the 4 events that led to my decision to leave twi.

one thing I do remember is that syllabi changed regularly. grads were supplied new syllabus pages and directed to throw away the old ones. I don't remember how long my cfs syllabus was, but eventually I'll dig it out of my garage and find out.

lcm's version?...... "Principles of a Believer's Family".........or close to that.

It was taped at Gunnison when lcm & donna were sharing things with the corps. Soon after, it was promoted as the "new" CFS class............but really pathetic. An audio class.

I had the misfortune of being the "class instructor" a couple of times..........worst class in twi.

I was embarrassed to even charge a class fee ($30) for this dribble.

Uuugh

[WhiteDove]

lcm's version?...... "Principles of a Believer's Family".........or close to that.

It was taped at Gunnison when lcm & donna were sharing things with the corps. Soon after, it was promoted as the "new" CFS class............but really pathetic. An audio class.

I had the misfortune of being the "class instructor" a couple of times..........worst class in twi.

I was embarrassed to even charge a class fee ($30) for this dribble.

Uuugh

Just a question without starting WW3

If you felt so strongly about this as you have indicated. Why did you instruct the class. Had I been so embarrassed I think one would decline to do so?

Were you honest with the class or did you misrepresent it anyway as something of worth to take.

Edited January 18, 2009 by WhiteDove

[potato]

lcm's version?...... "Principles of a Believer's Family".........or close to that.

It was taped at Gunnison when lcm & donna were sharing things with the corps. Soon after, it was promoted as the "new" CFS class............but really pathetic. An audio class.

I had the misfortune of being the "class instructor" a couple of times..........worst class in twi.

I was embarrassed to even charge a class fee ($30) for this dribble.

Uuugh

maybe that's why I don't remember it. I was required to listen to so many tapes in so many special meetings, they all just run together now.

[RumRunner]

I don't see you starting WW3 WD. However...

Edited again - I stand corrected by potato - it was your question to skyrider I was referring to....

Since you and I disagree on a number of issues - please do not take my comments as starting a personal WW3 with you either.

I think the obvious answer to your question for potato is rather simple. You know, as well as I do, that a significant percentage of people (I'd wager some number >50%) were wrapped up in that organization enough to feel guilty about NOT doing as told. This is not isolated to TWI - you can trace it to plenty of other organizations - even those non-religious - heck you can extend it to some 1960's hippie communes.

There have been plenty of posts here from people "admitting" to feeling bad about decisions/actions they made/did "back in the day." It is clearly not an isolated phenomena - and those who posted that thinking here on GSC tend to have a more activist mentality. I wonder how many people felt that way and just drifted off without coming here - without posting - and did whatever (hopefully got a life).

I have a somewhat personal perspective on rebellion within the ranks - since I had a reputation for it even while still in but I am not going to post it publicly.

Edited for some grammar errors

Just a question without starting WW3

If you felt so strongly about this as you have indicated. Why did you instruct the class. Had I been so embarrassed I think one would decline to do so?

Were you honest with the class or did you misrepresent it anyway as something of worth to take.

Edited January 19, 2009 by RumRunner

[potato]

<snip>

I think the obvious answer to your question for potato is rather simple.

</snip>

I think the question was for skyrider, but I would agree with your assessment because I found myself doing things I didn't agree with at times, without feeling I had much of a choice.

[johnj]

Did the Family and Sex class say anything about adultery?

What about premarital sex?

If you don't remember anything particular about this- what impression did you get from Wierwille (or Martindale or Coulter) about premarital sex or sex outside marriage?

[RumRunner]

Thanks potato - I edited my original post and gave you credit for the correction

I think the question was for skyrider, but I would agree with your assessment because I found myself doing things I didn't agree with at times, without feeling I had much of a choice.

[WhiteDove]

I don't see you starting WW3 WD. However...

Since you and I disagree on a number of issues - please do not take my comments as starting a personal WW3 with you either.

I think the obvious answer to your question for potato is rather simple. You know, as well as I do, that a significant percentage of people (I'd wager some number >50%) were wrapped up in that organization enough to feel guilty about NOT doing as told. This is not isolated to TWI - you can trace it to plenty of other organizations - even those non-religious - heck you can extend it to some 1960's hippie communes.

There have been plenty of posts here from people "admitting" to feeling bad about decisions/actions they made/did "back in the day." It is clearly not an isolated phenomena - and those who posted that thinking here on GSC tend to have a more activist mentality. I wonder how many people felt that way and just drifted off without coming here - without posting - and did whatever (hopefully got a life).

I have a somewhat personal perspective on rebellion within the ranks - since I had a reputation for it even while still in but I am not going to post it publicly.

Edited for some grammar errors

I can see people feeling bad about actions that in retrospect they realize better choices could have been made. I'd classify that as mistakes in judgement. I can't see espessially those attempting to live a Christian lifestyle doing things that are dishonest and know to be wrong. Isn't that the complaint against VP he did not live the life he spoke about. Are they any different? Were they the man they knew to be?

Edited January 19, 2009 by WhiteDove

[Abigail]

Did the Family and Sex class say anything about adultery?

What about premarital sex?

If you don't remember anything particular about this- what impression did you get from Wierwille (or Martindale or Coulter) about premarital sex or sex outside marriage?

In the interest of the thread topic (now there's a notion!!!) I took both the VPW and Martindale class. They both discussed pre-marital sex. VPW indicated it wasn't "best" but it was "acceptable" because men had needs. WD, that certainly is not a word for word quote, I will acknowledge that up front. But it was the impression left upon me, regarding this topic, after taking the class.

Martindale's teaching was similar, however, I recall him saying something about how people should get their parent's permission before engaging in pre-marital sex - even if they were adults, they should have parental permission. (and I would speculate - yes, WD, speculating is allowed - that Martindale was thinking of his daughters when he added that piece about parental consent. )

[RumRunner]

Dude - you know as well as I that you are in a gray area now - Vic posited himself as the authority (in most regards) - please don't nitpick here - you know what I mean. While it is easy to pretend we should all eat off of the same plate etc etc - we all also know that is not how it works in life. Wierwille had immense authority - immense - and so for those who felt somehow obliged to "behave" whether under duress or because of firm religious belief - well you know that is a different sociological/psychological response.

Really WD - I endeavored to have a decent discussion with you about this - but if you revert to nitpicking I'll just drop this thread and let you go about your business - not interested in the oh too often p(ss(ng contests that you and others seem to get into.

I can see people feeling bad about actions that in retrospect they realize better choices could have been made. I'd classify that as mistakes in judgement. I can't see espessially those attempting to live a Christian lifestyle doing things that are dishonest and know to be wrong. Isn't that the complaint against VP he did not live the life he spoke about. Are they any different? Were they the man they knew to be?

[WhiteDove]

Dude - you know as well as I that you are in a gray area now - Vic posited himself as the authority (in most regards) - please don't nitpick here - you know what I mean. While it is easy to pretend we should all eat off of the same plate etc etc - we all also know that is not how it works in life. Wierwille had immense authority - immense - and so for those who felt somehow obliged to "behave" whether under duress or because of firm religious belief - well you know that is a different sociological/psychological response.

Really WD - I endeavored to have a decent discussion with you about this - but if you revert to nitpicking I'll just drop this thread and let you go about your business - not interested in the oh too often p(ss(ng contests that you and others seem to get into.

Well we will disagree then because I don't see it as any different to consciously deceive someone to, do that which you know to be wrong is sin ,and sin is sin. If your going to hold one man accountable then you need to hold every man accountable for their lifestyle choices. Who decides who gets a free pass and who does not?

[Bolshevik]

Did the Family and Sex class say anything about adultery?

What about premarital sex?

If you don't remember anything particular about this- what impression did you get from Wierwille (or Martindale or Coulter) about premarital sex or sex outside marriage?

martindale's class, imagine, you're a teenager,

he taught, concerning premarital sex, the bible is silent on the subject. It's up to the parents to decide for each individual kid.

you can imagine the rest.

Oh yea --- wasn't there a deleted section of the CF&S class about the original sin??? Hmmmmmm?

That's a foundational class subject. You need to think at higher level. Other classes are for the "meat" of the word.

[waysider]

Would your mother have approved of it?

No, she didn't.

[leafytwiglet]

martindale's class, imagine, you're a teenager,

he taught, concerning premarital sex, the bible is silent on the subject. It's up to the parents to decide for each individual kid.

you can imagine the rest.

That's a foundational class subject. You need to think at higher level. Other classes are for the "meat" of the word.

Wait am I reading this correctly Bolshevik..... Did Martindale teach that the bible was silent about pre marital sex??

But the bible is not silent. The bible is against pre Marital sex....

[Bolshevik]

Wait am I reading this correctly Bolshevik..... Did Martindale teach that the bible was silent about pre marital sex??

But the bible is not silent. The bible is against pre Marital sex....

I don't know what the bible says on it, just know what I was taught.

[coolchef]

he was a very sick man and it was a very sick class

[dmiller]

he was a very sick man and it was a very sick class

Amen to that!

[Mike]

For those who are guided by recent emotions and dimmed memories

that class was 99% aimed at married couples who were not having much sex.

I saw that class encourage one middle age couple, parents of two girls in their late teens, to have two more boys.

***

As a single person taking that class I felt left out and uninstructed in finding a mate, the area I felt a need.

It seemed to be addressed to people past that stage, and even married, but who either had some hang-ups about sex being dirty or for whom it had become boring.

***

I see people here at times condemning the kind of talk and attitudes that occurred in that class, only to then see them post and converse and schmooze with posters here where identical, IDENTICAL talk and attitudes occur. This exceeds double standards and lands into the schizophrenic zones IMO, and I am flabbergasted to see that no one else observes it. This kind of common, religious, human behavior seems to me to be the kind of real life phenomena that Dana Carvey crafted his SNL Church Lady on, minus the laughs.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Mike