quote:I'm not going to judge your efforts to do this, except to say you got too philosophical. Examples are always more effecient an illustration. If an ex-Way person wants to illustrate the difference between homophobia... and believing that homosexuality is not Godly, I do believe there is one example that stands out.
Don't keep me in suspense Lifted. Who or what is it? Inquiring minds want to know.
One thing I don't agree with you on is that Jesus or David and Jonathan might have been gay. They were not. The rest of your opinions I do not want to give my opinion on concerning this subject.
So I guess my question of a couple of pages ago is a "NO," loud and resounding.
This sure is a hot topic and an issue we may never see resolved in our lifetimes. I believe homosexuality will never be accepted by the majority of people. Christ will come back before it happens and then and only then will we know his take on all of this. It will be interesting to see if same sex relationships will be allowed during his 1,000 year reign on earth (if you happen to believe there will even BE a 1,000 year reign).
I know that hetero men generally like lesbian stuff in porno flicks (I do not, never have). However, male affection, even non-sexual, is not acceptable in the USA as a rule. People just do not like to see it. In Europe and other continents male affection is much more acceptable. It was quite common in the USA before Freud's psycology changed everything.
quote:Again, I apologize. I probably should clarify my strange position a bit further. When I speak of "him" and "her" in conversations like this, I speak of two universal planes of force that we all exist on. What we perceive as our personal individual physical gender is but a thin veil. Every line of energy and dot of matter in the universe is involved in a relationship of sexual exchange (or wishing it was). ewwwww!
If I get you right you are saying that there is a sexual energy underlying many things and that gender is secondary to that?
johniam - many women do have masculine side but that doesn't make them all lesbians just as a feminine side doesn't make all men homosexual. It is not a question of gender but of attitude - some men are good at housework, cooking, looking after the kids, some men are tender hearted, some men are into appearance and fashion. If you "don't need a feminine anything" you might be a monosexual, refusing, like the monks of Mouth Athos, anything of feminine influence.
Jbarrax
I wish it WAS a myth. The gut reactions you cite have to have a cause and it is not just whether or not people are "forced to witness". I cited that many guys love witnessing women making out becuase that is no threat to their sense of their masculinity. Homosexuals have been attacked and physically abused just for being homosexuals, they have not had to do anything remotely provocative in the first place. It may well be that you yourself knowing that someone is gay, are OK about it providing they "don't scare the horses", but that does not mean that everyone is the same. And what causes the "basic repulsion" you cite?
I would still say fear - men kissing and holding hands in public is more than you think you can stomach and yet heterosexual couple pass you by without a second glance. Showing of love and affection in public should not be a crime, nor excite such reactions. Hell in other cultures, men walking hand in hand arm in arm and kissing is considered perfectly normal and these guys are hetero! They have not, however, been raised in a narrow, strait laced culture which limits and controls how one expresses emotion and friendship. You see certain behaviour and you find it objectionable precisely because it is based on a judgement which automatically connects to something you are not actually seeing, ie a sexual act.
On that basis Jesus and his beloved disciple would have been bashed. Remember he lays on Jesus' breast?
Raf
Thank you. I can quite agree that sometimes the word can be used inadvisedly and without weighing up the facts but humans are very good at that. Not all opposition is based on classicly rabid homophibia, and I am pleased to report that I do not find much of it in Greasespot.
Yes you have to be interested. Women are used to being hit on by men and have to take it in their stride. All a man has to say, like many of the women whom he flirts with, is "no thanks". There are some hetero guys who are flattered that they have a gay following though!
Dot
SF is not typical of gay behaviour the world over. There are places there where heterosexual residents are in a minority and majority behaviour is therefore different. If it was in the Castro for example. That does not excuse the people getting indignant or throwing out the phrase so casually.
But then when gays are in minority they have to put up with many insults and taunts, "faggot" and "queer" being some of the more repeatable ones. Think of an attractive lesbian girl in a supermarket being chatted up by the local lothario, he is convinced that he is God's gift to women and is unused to rejection. His male ego requires that she submit and cannot handle the rejection. He is going to use words that don't really fit the situation too.
Yes the SF guys should have admitted they were wrong. But then so should the lothario. There is no excuse for rudeness in any situation.
johaniam (again)
I do my best not to get heated. I also appreciate that there is a distinction between homophobia and thinking that it not Godly. Trouble is I guess, and yes I know it doesn't apply to all, we have all been exposed to TWI influence on the subject and this may still colour some people's views. I don't get vituperative normally towards what people post but I am entitled to challenge what people think is the biblical view, I myself have also had to take this into account in reaching the position I have today.
vertical limit
If I remember rightly I said "might have been gay, or at least bisexual." Such terms as we use today were not known then. But the way their relationship is described at least allows some questions. We know they also had women in their lives, in David's case a LOT of women :D--> but I find no parallel which says how their hearts were together and that their "love exceeded that of women". Whether or not they ever did anything is secondary to the sheer intensity of their relationship.
exousia
Acceptance is happening. It is not the big issue in the younger generation that it is with the older ones. In many parts of the world there have been major strides towards acceptance, equal rights, and decriminilisation (sp). There are also new understandings in many parts of the relgious world. I am unable to paint quite as black a picture as you.
quote: If these had been women approaching him while we were together, society would have seen those actions as "wrong". But because we now have to tip toe around everyone's feelings we were suppose to just blow off the advances. We were not MAD because they were homosexuals we were MAD because they were rude.
But rather than admit they were wrong, they accused us of homophobia. I think the homosexuals use that word to make heterosexuals feel guilty about how they act around homosexuals, even when their behavior clearly warrants chastisement.
Along the lines of what our friend across the pond said... those people didn't act that way because they were homosexual, they acted that way because they were rude and had no manners or boundaries... and you and your husband should have responded to them the same as if it had been women hitting on him (you did)... bad manners is bad manners, unacceptable behavior is unacceptable behavior...
I love you, but I disagree that society tells us we have to tiptoe around... tell them (you did), if their response is as you stated, that doesn't change anything... those folks were just jerks... gay, straight or bi, they were jerks... dismiss them as such... that's all...
There's lots of jerks out there... but you know that!
... confusion will be my epitath...
[This message was edited by Tom Strange on September 26, 2003 at 15:17.]
No, I am saying that gender exists on many levels, if not all levels. Gender of flesh is only skin deep. Angelic beings are dual gender. We are all, in truth, angelic beings.
Can "male and female created he them" of Genesis refer to the spirit of an individual?
Using the body/soul/spirit paradigm...
If each of these elements have a male/female right/left element, then we get 3 x 2 = 6 (the human number).
And its not elimination of gender that becomes like the angels of heaven, but the uniting of gender into one (or at least the realization of this unity).
"Two become one flesh," because in the singular gender of flesh, we are only half a being?
One tree growing on each side of the river?
And 12 = marriage (two 6 dimensional beings overlapping on every level is the healthiest).
etc...
Oh, yeah, and there's that lucky number 7.
peace
Todd
Now, I going to try to extricate myself from this thread before I get buried in a mountain of lexicons.
Yes I agree, heterosexuals do not have the monopoly on "Jerk"ness.
I have encountered a few who "bat for my side" too! :D-->
My head is spinning at all that numerology of Todd's too exousia.
Todd asks "Can "male and female created he them" of Genesis refer to the spirit of an individual?"
It's an interesting thought but I would think that the original writer or Genesis was thinking in physical terms, that the fig leaves were hiding different organs rather than different spirits! ;)-->
The common expression "the other half" is less liekly to be taken from Genesis than from Greek philosophy. In Plato's Symposium the idea is expressed that in some prelife state two halves of an egg are split and the halves resulting spend their time trying to find each other in this life. The person expressing the idea is talking about homosexual, not heterosexual love (well the ancient greeks were more into that kind of thing). But the idea of incompletion is there and also in Genesis.
It could refer to the spiritual and the mental as much as the physical, as flesh is only in the "oneness" stage for part of the time.
quote:I wish it WAS a myth. The gut reactions you cite have to have a cause and it is not just whether or not people are "forced to witness". I cited that many guys love witnessing women making out becuase that is no threat to their sense of their masculinity.
I'll tell you quite frankly why men like to see women make out. It's based on two simple principals;
One--men look for women who are willing to have sex with them. The more randy a woman is, the more interesting she is to men; hence the term "hot babe". Two--Men know that most women are not interested in having sex with other women. So we assume (wrongly perhaps) that if a girl is sooooo randy that she'll have sex with a woman, then surely she'll have sex with us. The unspoken invitation communicated by an image of two women having sex is "Hey big boy, jump in!"
So men's acceptance of lesbian erotica is not based on an acceptance of homosexuality; quite the contrary. It's based on the presumption of extreme promiscutiy. I know it makes no sense but that's the emotional dynamic. Sorry if that's too philosophical, Lifted Up, but I don't have any personal illustrations involving menages a trois. :-)
quote:Homosexuals have been attacked and physically abused just for being homosexuals, they have not had to do anything remotely provocative in the first place.
You are disputing a statement I did not make and therefore failing to acknowledge the facts. I didn't say homosexuals aren't attacked unless they're demonstrative. What I said was, it has been statistically proven that when homosexuals are publicly demonstrative violence against them increases. My point is, the increase is because the sight of two men kissing (or worse)is revolting to the average man. Being in the company of a man and woman who are too affectionate is embarrassing and may elicit the familiar chide, "Get a room!". But there's an enormous difference between being embarrassed and being disgusted.
quote:It may well be that you yourself knowing that someone is gay, are OK about it providing they "don't scare the horses", but that does not mean that everyone is the same...
Here you are putting words in my mouth that support your case. I didn't use the phrase "scare the horses" or anything like it. My whole point is that this behavior causes revulsion not fear. You are not only missing the point, you're obscuring it.
quote:And what causes the "basic repulsion" you cite? I would still say fear - men kissing and holding hands in public is more than you think you can stomach and yet heterosexual couple pass you by without a second glance.
Then you are simply dismissing what I'm saying without reason. You asked a question and answered it based on no evidence or reason. Why would you say fear? That's an illogical assumption. If a group of people were sitting in a room visiting and a woman brought a dog in and began to fondle its genitals and try to arouse it, most people would be repulsed. Would they be afraid of the dog? No. Of the girl? No. It's not scary, it's just nasty. Likewise, your point about the difference between the reaction to heterosexual couples merely underscores the basic point about homosexuality being unnatural. We don't react with revulsion when we see a man and a woman hugging and kissing because that's a natural part of life. To see the opposite elicits a gut reaction because it goes against the grain that is our natural sexual identity.
Can "male and female created he them" of Genesis refer to the spirit of an individual?
Using the body/soul/spirit paradigm...
If each of these elements have a male/female right/left element, then we get 3 x 2 = 6 (the human number).
I hate to disappoint you SGA, but the "body, soul, spirit paradigm" in Genesis is a shoddy construct that's not supported by the Scripture. VP's PFAL teaching on body, soul, and spirit is full of holes and at odds with the context and the verses.
You don't really seem to hate disappointing people, Jbarrax. Besides, how can you disappoint me if I was never relying on you to begin with. I don't even know you.
The triune nature of man is a much older concept than VPW. Even older than the author of Genesis. I just thought it would be helpful to use terminology familiar to this forum. Maybe I was wrong?
quote: To see the opposite elicits a gut reaction because it goes against the grain that is our natural sexual identity.
Natural is one of those words which also gets bandied around. If you had been raised in an environment where you were used to see such things and had not had a lifetime of other influences saying different I doubt you would bat an eyelid and give it a second thought.
The example of the dog is somewhat different, given that it is not the same species. Now I have had a dogs trying to have sex with my leg, some have been male dogs and some female dogs. That was the dog's choice not mine, it tried to initiate it, I didn't. The dog doesn't see anything wrong with it, but being human, I do and therefore try to stop the dog carrying on.
I am not repulsed by this but I know it is not appropriate to encourage it in it's behaviour. No way do I then go ahead and bash the dog, it has acted upon some impulse or other, it has not been trained to do it or encouraged to do it.
Now a human initating such behaviour is different. Even if I had not had other influences telling me so I should find it weird and strange.
You don't really seem to hate disappointing people, Jbarrax. Besides, how can you disappoint me if I was never relying on you to begin with. I don't even know you.
lol! Touche!
The triune nature of man is even older than the author of Genesis, eh? I'll have to think on that one a while Todd. I wrongly assumed you were basing that statement on VP's PFAL stuff on body, soul, and spirit.
Personally, although there are other verses in the Bible that speak of the triune nature of modern Christian man, I don't find support for a triune man in Genesis. Genesis seems to speak of a body and soul configuration. Body, soul, and spirit as three distinct interwoven elements came after Pentecost, imo. Man version 1.0 and 1.1, to use a modern metaphor. I think that, because of the work of Christ, man becomes body, soul, and spirit after believing to salvation (as VP taught), but that Adam and Eve didn't necessarily start this way. yadda yadda yadda.
yadda.
Peace
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on September 27, 2003 at 14:56.]
That seems an uncommon view of the transformation from Eden to Pentecost, though not without a nice harmony.
I believe that every seed ever planted by God was planted on the 3rd day. Likewise, every tree that has ever grown is genos of these seeds. There is nothing new since then, just a lot of new arrangements. ;)-->
(and now, to help keep the ball in play...)
So what does this have to do with what Christian Family and Sex class is about?
To bring the thread back on topic here a few quotes form CF&S
Anything that has life in it stinks when it dies. So for Lord's sake next morning (after intercourse) take a bath!
VP's advice to women included maintaining their "girlishness". According to Vic, here's what not to say to your husband:
"See my big brests? What're you gonna do with `em?"
Re: dating. VP said we've lost "the art of dating" in which the object is not to have sex, but to get to know each other. (With this I think we could all agree). To summarize his advice to young girls, he said, "It's better to come home hot and bothered, than satisfied...and worried."
Anyone else have any tibdits of wisdom (or nonsense masquerading as such) from "The Teacher"?
I remember vpw saying that it was better for the woman to dress in the closet. Something like that because men are curious. They will want to look and so will be interested.
I know thats not the exact words but something like that.
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Would you rather know the secrets to all the magic tricks you see, or would you rather NOT know? deep down, I mean. I really think that most people would rather retain a sense of wonder than to know, because once you know the secret, the magic is gone.
The Japanese consider the back of a woman's neck sexy. Why? because they never see it.
Well it seems that Whitedove and maybe one or two others have come the the rescue of VPW and of the CF&S class to lend it some credibility. I give them the golden raspbery award for effort.
I first made the statement that VPW referred to a woman's vigina as ugly. But this was not a verbatim quote. What I actually recall being said was that "there is nothing pretty about it" or something along these lines, thence my use of the word "ugly". I will stand corrected if someone has the actual class tapes and tells me it is not in there. An instructor's guide is a poor source of reference because it does not contain everything said in the class. Furthermore, I question the objectivity of the instructor. It is easy to be unobjective about something that one believes in or spent many years teaching and promoting.
It is also somewhat inappropriate to charge folks with being dishonest or speaking from anger when they post their recollections of what was said in this or any TWI class. Not all negative ideas concerning VPW or his teachings stem from anger, venting and dishonesty. Some come from years of study, soul-searching and just plain common-sense.
Wierwille was a sex pervert. He abused and molested women. He was abusive and ugly to his wife. I think it is quite reasonable to interpret the CF& S class in light of these things. It has nothing to do with dishonesty or anger. Considering VPW's character, I also think it quite reasonable to question his motives in his teachings in this class.
Why was fornication glossed over? Where did inspiration for the masterbation/original sin teaching come from? Why little or nothing on fidelity? Adultery?
I believe its is less than objective to post and comment on only the good parts about this class and not to consider it as a whole. IMO, the CF& S class is a case of a little leaven leavens the whole lump ( Galations 5:9). There is enough "bad" in this class to invalidate it as a whole. I cannot imagine anyone basing their marriage, sex life, and family life upon the content of the CF& S class and using it as an authoritive guide. I highly suspect that it did more harm than good. But this might be a hard pill to swallow for someone who was an instructor of this class for years, thinking it to be a good thing. I understand that.
On another note, VPW revealed his ignorance on sex in this class by some of the things that were taught. It seems pretty clear to me that what he taught as facts were sometimes his opinions or maybe based upon his own personal experiences/preferences. For example, he said to the ladies that if you rub the rim of the penis just so that a man will ejaculate almost immediately. Is this a fact? I don't think so. What man then was VPW referring to?
Is it true that "the way to a man's heart is through his penis"? Does this or should this apply to all Christian men or just the elite Men of God of the Way?
Should a Christian wife really be a whore in the bedroom? Or expected to be one by her husband?
Victor Paul Wierwille was the antithesis of an expert on "Christian Family and Sex and had absolultely no business teaching a class of this nature, yet he did so anyway. Why ?
Maybe some of y'all can look back and see this class as good by picking out the good parts and ignoring the obvious. I instead see a class put together by a depraved man - a pervert and a charlatan, for the main purpose of promoting a culture/sub-culture within his "ministry" where his own perversions were allowed and even condoned - where he could get his "needs" met on a continual basis. A ministry where the women were whores in the bedroom and cooks in the kitchen and gave their husbands (and their ordained male leaders) sexual pleasure (usually unknown to the husbands) to take care of their "needs."
Of course the CF&S class had some good stuff thrown into to it - to lend it some credibility. VPW was not stupid.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
I too remember the bit about the vagina being "ugly" and thinking at the time "compared to what?"
I also remember probably the MOST hurtful (and really just plain stupid) statements made in the class that "any two believers can make it in a marriage if they just renew their minds".
Yeah, that worked out swell for quite a number of us...
quote:Re: dating. VP said we've lost "the art of dating" in which the object is not to have sex, but to get to know each other. (With this I think we could all agree). To summarize his advice to young girls, he said, "It's better to come home hot and bothered, than satisfied...and worried."
For what it's worth, in my notes, I have it written as "It's better to come home hot and bothered, than satisfied and sorry."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
39
66
34
Popular Days
Sep 20
84
Sep 19
78
Sep 22
63
Sep 21
53
Top Posters In This Topic
RottieGrrrl 32 posts
excathedra 39 posts
Dot Matrix 66 posts
WhiteDove 34 posts
Popular Days
Sep 20 2003
84 posts
Sep 19 2003
78 posts
Sep 22 2003
63 posts
Sep 21 2003
53 posts
Jbarrax
Don't keep me in suspense Lifted. Who or what is it? Inquiring minds want to know.
JB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Trefor-
One thing I don't agree with you on is that Jesus or David and Jonathan might have been gay. They were not. The rest of your opinions I do not want to give my opinion on concerning this subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
exousia
So I guess my question of a couple of pages ago is a "NO," loud and resounding.
This sure is a hot topic and an issue we may never see resolved in our lifetimes. I believe homosexuality will never be accepted by the majority of people. Christ will come back before it happens and then and only then will we know his take on all of this. It will be interesting to see if same sex relationships will be allowed during his 1,000 year reign on earth (if you happen to believe there will even BE a 1,000 year reign).
I know that hetero men generally like lesbian stuff in porno flicks (I do not, never have). However, male affection, even non-sexual, is not acceptable in the USA as a rule. People just do not like to see it. In Europe and other continents male affection is much more acceptable. It was quite common in the USA before Freud's psycology changed everything.
Oh well.
exousia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Todd
If I get you right you are saying that there is a sexual energy underlying many things and that gender is secondary to that?
johniam - many women do have masculine side but that doesn't make them all lesbians just as a feminine side doesn't make all men homosexual. It is not a question of gender but of attitude - some men are good at housework, cooking, looking after the kids, some men are tender hearted, some men are into appearance and fashion. If you "don't need a feminine anything" you might be a monosexual, refusing, like the monks of Mouth Athos, anything of feminine influence.
Jbarrax
I wish it WAS a myth. The gut reactions you cite have to have a cause and it is not just whether or not people are "forced to witness". I cited that many guys love witnessing women making out becuase that is no threat to their sense of their masculinity. Homosexuals have been attacked and physically abused just for being homosexuals, they have not had to do anything remotely provocative in the first place. It may well be that you yourself knowing that someone is gay, are OK about it providing they "don't scare the horses", but that does not mean that everyone is the same. And what causes the "basic repulsion" you cite?
I would still say fear - men kissing and holding hands in public is more than you think you can stomach and yet heterosexual couple pass you by without a second glance. Showing of love and affection in public should not be a crime, nor excite such reactions. Hell in other cultures, men walking hand in hand arm in arm and kissing is considered perfectly normal and these guys are hetero! They have not, however, been raised in a narrow, strait laced culture which limits and controls how one expresses emotion and friendship. You see certain behaviour and you find it objectionable precisely because it is based on a judgement which automatically connects to something you are not actually seeing, ie a sexual act.
On that basis Jesus and his beloved disciple would have been bashed. Remember he lays on Jesus' breast?
Raf
Thank you. I can quite agree that sometimes the word can be used inadvisedly and without weighing up the facts but humans are very good at that. Not all opposition is based on classicly rabid homophibia, and I am pleased to report that I do not find much of it in Greasespot.
Yes you have to be interested. Women are used to being hit on by men and have to take it in their stride. All a man has to say, like many of the women whom he flirts with, is "no thanks". There are some hetero guys who are flattered that they have a gay following though!
Dot
SF is not typical of gay behaviour the world over. There are places there where heterosexual residents are in a minority and majority behaviour is therefore different. If it was in the Castro for example. That does not excuse the people getting indignant or throwing out the phrase so casually.
But then when gays are in minority they have to put up with many insults and taunts, "faggot" and "queer" being some of the more repeatable ones. Think of an attractive lesbian girl in a supermarket being chatted up by the local lothario, he is convinced that he is God's gift to women and is unused to rejection. His male ego requires that she submit and cannot handle the rejection. He is going to use words that don't really fit the situation too.
Yes the SF guys should have admitted they were wrong. But then so should the lothario. There is no excuse for rudeness in any situation.
johaniam (again)
I do my best not to get heated. I also appreciate that there is a distinction between homophobia and thinking that it not Godly. Trouble is I guess, and yes I know it doesn't apply to all, we have all been exposed to TWI influence on the subject and this may still colour some people's views. I don't get vituperative normally towards what people post but I am entitled to challenge what people think is the biblical view, I myself have also had to take this into account in reaching the position I have today.
vertical limit
If I remember rightly I said "might have been gay, or at least bisexual." Such terms as we use today were not known then. But the way their relationship is described at least allows some questions. We know they also had women in their lives, in David's case a LOT of women
:D--> but I find no parallel which says how their hearts were together and that their "love exceeded that of women". Whether or not they ever did anything is secondary to the sheer intensity of their relationship.
exousia
Acceptance is happening. It is not the big issue in the younger generation that it is with the older ones. In many parts of the world there have been major strides towards acceptance, equal rights, and decriminilisation (sp). There are also new understandings in many parts of the relgious world. I am unable to paint quite as black a picture as you.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
DotDotDot...
Along the lines of what our friend across the pond said... those people didn't act that way because they were homosexual, they acted that way because they were rude and had no manners or boundaries... and you and your husband should have responded to them the same as if it had been women hitting on him (you did)... bad manners is bad manners, unacceptable behavior is unacceptable behavior...
I love you, but I disagree that society tells us we have to tiptoe around... tell them (you did), if their response is as you stated, that doesn't change anything... those folks were just jerks... gay, straight or bi, they were jerks... dismiss them as such... that's all...
There's lots of jerks out there... but you know that!
... confusion will be my epitath...
[This message was edited by Tom Strange on September 26, 2003 at 15:17.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Trefor,
No, I am saying that gender exists on many levels, if not all levels. Gender of flesh is only skin deep. Angelic beings are dual gender. We are all, in truth, angelic beings.
Can "male and female created he them" of Genesis refer to the spirit of an individual?
Using the body/soul/spirit paradigm...
If each of these elements have a male/female right/left element, then we get 3 x 2 = 6 (the human number).
And its not elimination of gender that becomes like the angels of heaven, but the uniting of gender into one (or at least the realization of this unity).
"Two become one flesh," because in the singular gender of flesh, we are only half a being?
One tree growing on each side of the river?
And 12 = marriage (two 6 dimensional beings overlapping on every level is the healthiest).
etc...
Oh, yeah, and there's that lucky number 7.
peace
Todd
Now, I going to try to extricate myself from this thread before I get buried in a mountain of lexicons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
exousia
My head is spinning.
exousia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Tom Strange
Yes I agree, heterosexuals do not have the monopoly on "Jerk"ness.
I have encountered a few who "bat for my side" too!
:D-->
My head is spinning at all that numerology of Todd's too exousia.
Todd asks "Can "male and female created he them" of Genesis refer to the spirit of an individual?"
It's an interesting thought but I would think that the original writer or Genesis was thinking in physical terms, that the fig leaves were hiding different organs rather than different spirits!
;)-->
The common expression "the other half" is less liekly to be taken from Genesis than from Greek philosophy. In Plato's Symposium the idea is expressed that in some prelife state two halves of an egg are split and the halves resulting spend their time trying to find each other in this life. The person expressing the idea is talking about homosexual, not heterosexual love (well the ancient greeks were more into that kind of thing). But the idea of incompletion is there and also in Genesis.
It could refer to the spiritual and the mental as much as the physical, as flesh is only in the "oneness" stage for part of the time.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Sorry bout the head spinning.
I hope its not a bad thing.
But if it is...
...is there an exorcist in the house?
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Trefor
I'll tell you quite frankly why men like to see women make out. It's based on two simple principals;
One--men look for women who are willing to have sex with them. The more randy a woman is, the more interesting she is to men; hence the term "hot babe". Two--Men know that most women are not interested in having sex with other women. So we assume (wrongly perhaps) that if a girl is sooooo randy that she'll have sex with a woman, then surely she'll have sex with us. The unspoken invitation communicated by an image of two women having sex is "Hey big boy, jump in!"
So men's acceptance of lesbian erotica is not based on an acceptance of homosexuality; quite the contrary. It's based on the presumption of extreme promiscutiy. I know it makes no sense but that's the emotional dynamic. Sorry if that's too philosophical, Lifted Up, but I don't have any personal illustrations involving menages a trois. :-)
You are disputing a statement I did not make and therefore failing to acknowledge the facts. I didn't say homosexuals aren't attacked unless they're demonstrative. What I said was, it has been statistically proven that when homosexuals are publicly demonstrative violence against them increases. My point is, the increase is because the sight of two men kissing (or worse)is revolting to the average man. Being in the company of a man and woman who are too affectionate is embarrassing and may elicit the familiar chide, "Get a room!". But there's an enormous difference between being embarrassed and being disgusted.
Here you are putting words in my mouth that support your case. I didn't use the phrase "scare the horses" or anything like it. My whole point is that this behavior causes revulsion not fear. You are not only missing the point, you're obscuring it.
Then you are simply dismissing what I'm saying without reason. You asked a question and answered it based on no evidence or reason. Why would you say fear? That's an illogical assumption. If a group of people were sitting in a room visiting and a woman brought a dog in and began to fondle its genitals and try to arouse it, most people would be repulsed. Would they be afraid of the dog? No. Of the girl? No. It's not scary, it's just nasty. Likewise, your point about the difference between the reaction to heterosexual couples merely underscores the basic point about homosexuality being unnatural. We don't react with revulsion when we see a man and a woman hugging and kissing because that's a natural part of life. To see the opposite elicits a gut reaction because it goes against the grain that is our natural sexual identity.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I hate to disappoint you SGA, but the "body, soul, spirit paradigm" in Genesis is a shoddy construct that's not supported by the Scripture. VP's PFAL teaching on body, soul, and spirit is full of holes and at odds with the context and the verses.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
You don't really seem to hate disappointing people, Jbarrax. Besides, how can you disappoint me if I was never relying on you to begin with. I don't even know you.
The triune nature of man is a much older concept than VPW. Even older than the author of Genesis. I just thought it would be helpful to use terminology familiar to this forum. Maybe I was wrong?
Now I hope your'e not too disappointed in me.
For what its worth to ya,
Peace,
Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Not to spar with ya, tho. Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Jbarrax
Natural is one of those words which also gets bandied around. If you had been raised in an environment where you were used to see such things and had not had a lifetime of other influences saying different I doubt you would bat an eyelid and give it a second thought.
The example of the dog is somewhat different, given that it is not the same species. Now I have had a dogs trying to have sex with my leg, some have been male dogs and some female dogs. That was the dog's choice not mine, it tried to initiate it, I didn't. The dog doesn't see anything wrong with it, but being human, I do and therefore try to stop the dog carrying on.
I am not repulsed by this but I know it is not appropriate to encourage it in it's behaviour. No way do I then go ahead and bash the dog, it has acted upon some impulse or other, it has not been trained to do it or encouraged to do it.
Now a human initating such behaviour is different. Even if I had not had other influences telling me so I should find it weird and strange.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
lol! Touche!
The triune nature of man is even older than the author of Genesis, eh? I'll have to think on that one a while Todd. I wrongly assumed you were basing that statement on VP's PFAL stuff on body, soul, and spirit.
Personally, although there are other verses in the Bible that speak of the triune nature of modern Christian man, I don't find support for a triune man in Genesis. Genesis seems to speak of a body and soul configuration. Body, soul, and spirit as three distinct interwoven elements came after Pentecost, imo. Man version 1.0 and 1.1, to use a modern metaphor. I think that, because of the work of Christ, man becomes body, soul, and spirit after believing to salvation (as VP taught), but that Adam and Eve didn't necessarily start this way. yadda yadda yadda.
yadda.
Peace
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on September 27, 2003 at 14:56.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Peace back atcha, JB.
:)-->
That seems an uncommon view of the transformation from Eden to Pentecost, though not without a nice harmony.
I believe that every seed ever planted by God was planted on the 3rd day. Likewise, every tree that has ever grown is genos of these seeds. There is nothing new since then, just a lot of new arrangements.
;)-->
(and now, to help keep the ball in play...)
So what does this have to do with what Christian Family and Sex class is about?
WACK!
Everything, but not much, sadly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
ahhh nothing but then so does most of the other posts on here but it's been fun anyway. Thanks Rottie..
Without Coffee
I Would Have No Personality At All
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
To bring the thread back on topic here a few quotes form CF&S
Anything that has life in it stinks when it dies. So for Lord's sake next morning (after intercourse) take a bath!
VP's advice to women included maintaining their "girlishness". According to Vic, here's what not to say to your husband:
"See my big brests? What're you gonna do with `em?"
Re: dating. VP said we've lost "the art of dating" in which the object is not to have sex, but to get to know each other. (With this I think we could all agree). To summarize his advice to young girls, he said, "It's better to come home hot and bothered, than satisfied...and worried."
Anyone else have any tibdits of wisdom (or nonsense masquerading as such) from "The Teacher"?
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I remember vpw saying that it was better for the woman to dress in the closet. Something like that because men are curious. They will want to look and so will be interested.
I know thats not the exact words but something like that.
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
It was something about men liking a little mystery...
(I think they do.)
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Aaaah, mystery.
Never lose the magic.
Would you rather know the secrets to all the magic tricks you see, or would you rather NOT know? deep down, I mean. I really think that most people would rather retain a sense of wonder than to know, because once you know the secret, the magic is gone.
The Japanese consider the back of a woman's neck sexy. Why? because they never see it.
Never lose the magic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Well it seems that Whitedove and maybe one or two others have come the the rescue of VPW and of the CF&S class to lend it some credibility. I give them the golden raspbery award for effort.
I first made the statement that VPW referred to a woman's vigina as ugly. But this was not a verbatim quote. What I actually recall being said was that "there is nothing pretty about it" or something along these lines, thence my use of the word "ugly". I will stand corrected if someone has the actual class tapes and tells me it is not in there. An instructor's guide is a poor source of reference because it does not contain everything said in the class. Furthermore, I question the objectivity of the instructor. It is easy to be unobjective about something that one believes in or spent many years teaching and promoting.
It is also somewhat inappropriate to charge folks with being dishonest or speaking from anger when they post their recollections of what was said in this or any TWI class. Not all negative ideas concerning VPW or his teachings stem from anger, venting and dishonesty. Some come from years of study, soul-searching and just plain common-sense.
Wierwille was a sex pervert. He abused and molested women. He was abusive and ugly to his wife. I think it is quite reasonable to interpret the CF& S class in light of these things. It has nothing to do with dishonesty or anger. Considering VPW's character, I also think it quite reasonable to question his motives in his teachings in this class.
Why was fornication glossed over? Where did inspiration for the masterbation/original sin teaching come from? Why little or nothing on fidelity? Adultery?
I believe its is less than objective to post and comment on only the good parts about this class and not to consider it as a whole. IMO, the CF& S class is a case of a little leaven leavens the whole lump ( Galations 5:9). There is enough "bad" in this class to invalidate it as a whole. I cannot imagine anyone basing their marriage, sex life, and family life upon the content of the CF& S class and using it as an authoritive guide. I highly suspect that it did more harm than good. But this might be a hard pill to swallow for someone who was an instructor of this class for years, thinking it to be a good thing. I understand that.
On another note, VPW revealed his ignorance on sex in this class by some of the things that were taught. It seems pretty clear to me that what he taught as facts were sometimes his opinions or maybe based upon his own personal experiences/preferences. For example, he said to the ladies that if you rub the rim of the penis just so that a man will ejaculate almost immediately. Is this a fact? I don't think so. What man then was VPW referring to?
Is it true that "the way to a man's heart is through his penis"? Does this or should this apply to all Christian men or just the elite Men of God of the Way?
Should a Christian wife really be a whore in the bedroom? Or expected to be one by her husband?
Victor Paul Wierwille was the antithesis of an expert on "Christian Family and Sex and had absolultely no business teaching a class of this nature, yet he did so anyway. Why ?
Maybe some of y'all can look back and see this class as good by picking out the good parts and ignoring the obvious. I instead see a class put together by a depraved man - a pervert and a charlatan, for the main purpose of promoting a culture/sub-culture within his "ministry" where his own perversions were allowed and even condoned - where he could get his "needs" met on a continual basis. A ministry where the women were whores in the bedroom and cooks in the kitchen and gave their husbands (and their ordained male leaders) sexual pleasure (usually unknown to the husbands) to take care of their "needs."
Of course the CF&S class had some good stuff thrown into to it - to lend it some credibility. VPW was not stupid.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Goey,
Although I may not be your most revered source,
I heartily concur with everything you posted.
I too remember the bit about the vagina being "ugly" and thinking at the time "compared to what?"
I also remember probably the MOST hurtful (and really just plain stupid) statements made in the class that "any two believers can make it in a marriage if they just renew their minds".
Yeah, that worked out swell for quite a number of us...
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
For what it's worth, in my notes, I have it written as "It's better to come home hot and bothered, than satisfied and sorry."
Link 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.