The Skeptical Texan

Vickles, Yeah, it all came down to money and sex ... but ironically, CF&S was mostly about money. SkepTex PS: There's a typo in my earlier post; the VPW-apologist's name is Mike. I just can't imagine why anybody spend their time defending the infallibility of VPW's writings on this site, but I suppose some folks really do spit into the wind.

Vickles, CFS conspicuously skimped on scripture's strong and numerous prohibitions of adultery and pretty much omitted Jesus' frequent condemnation of lust. I imagine that aspect of CFS was by design to minimize the significance of sexual immorality, but I still think it was primarily to make money for TWI's "Leadership". SkepTex

DotMatrix, I don't think ANYTHING that the "Leadership" of TWI did had integrity ... not PFAL, not CFS, not WOW, and certainly not Corps. There were individuals in TWI that did have genuine integrity and a sincere belief in the Almighty, but these folks were usually far away from New Knoxville. Your citations notwithstanding, I did not infer that WhiteDove was advancing a case for the integrity of CFS. Perhaps his posting did open itself to that inference by your good self and others, though, when he used buzzwords like "accountability before God" and posed his rhetorical questions. On re-reading your citations, I would agree that this prose could reasonably be interpreted to overstate what I think his position truly is. The rhetorical questions, I think, were just that: rhetoric. WhiteDove can speak for himself, but I think the rhetorical intent was to lead the reader to conclude that: 1) though deeply flawed, CFS may have had some valid content and 2) even if VPW and TWI "Leadership" were sex perverts, there is little clear evidence that its intent, design, and content were directed to facilitate that end. 3) that there's plenty of evidence apart from CFS that TWI was utterly corrupt, so we don't have to exaggerate the significance of cases where the evidence is thin. As I have already stated, my own theory (unprovable and therefore worthless you may argue) is that the intent, design, and content of CFS was directed at generating revenue. Regardless of whether the motives for CFS were pure (highly improbable) or purely evil (maybe) or just corrupt in an ordinary way (most likely in my opinion), there's no escaping the irony of having hard-drinking, chain-smoking, skirt-chasing preacher from backwoods Ohio teaching a class on Christian Family and Sex. And, if the story about bestiality videos is true, that part IS evil. I know that many of you have endured TWI for much longer than I and have experienced far more abuse from its "Leadership". (I "tripped out" in '76, only "hitchhiking" occasionally till '86.) You made larger investments of time and treasure in TWI, so your pain of loss is greater than mine. Though I was just an onlooker to the train wreck that is TWI, perhaps the train's passengers can gain this perspective: there seems to be a tendency here at GS the conclude that a positive statement about TWI is tantamount to VPW-apologetics. (Now, there is a fellow named make who really does do VPW-apologetics, but he's the exception.) Submitted without judgment for your kind consideration, SkepTex (BTW, lest there be any doubt, I was known as the Skeptic when I was in TWI. It doesn't refer specifically to skepticism about the charges against TWI here at GS. However, I have retained a healthy skepticism in all things: "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.")

Okay, Dougie ... Dog Day Afternoon? If true, that WAS evil, not just weird! SkepTex

I wrote the previous post back when y'all were on page 6, and got around to posting just now. Flame away, but I recall the class just being weird, not evil ... except for his skirting that inconvenient topic of adultery. If I had been one of a victim of his sexual appetites, perhaps I, too, would ascribe his motive for offering CFS to his sexual lusts. But I don't think it was that. I ascribe his motive for offering to CFS to revenue generation. Seriously, I think the purpose of CFS, and TWI generally, was to make money. VPW may have been evil, but he wasn't stupid. VPW's sexual appetites, and whatever scriptural justifications he made related to them, had to be kept private or any normal person would have left. Then he'd lose the money and access to young women. Promiscuous behaviors and the doctrines justifying them were lockbox for Corps and other Wayfer insiders. I certainly was never privy to them and I don't recall any such justification in CFS (and, being single, I was listening carefully.) Flame away if you must. I really don't see the why y'all are flaming WhiteDove so. He just seems to be reporting the facts as he recalls them, rather than creating a justification for VPW's reprehensible behavior. SkepTex

Though I only recall sitting through CFS once, I have to weigh in on this topic. WhiteDove is basically correct ... at least, my CFS class was not conducted with the intent of corrupting the Gospel. As I recall, CFS had three main themes that I'd summarize as: - The Joy of Sex - The Virtuous Woman - The Organization of the Christian Family The first of these was a refutation of the fear and loathing of sex promulgated by traditional Christian teaching. On one level, I think VPW was mostly correct: the teachings of the both Catholic and Protestant traditions focus on the sinful aspects of sex, and the paucity of positive teaching on the topic lead many to question whether it is ever to be regarded as a positive good. In fact, that was Catholic doctrine for some time, but things have changed since Vatican II. The root cause of this situation in the Church is the relative absence of positive reference to sex in Scripture. I only theorize here, but I think that the positive aspects of sex (within a sanctioned marriage) are fairly obvious, so the Almighty didn't think it necessary to go into detail. Besides, a little experimentation (within the bounds of matrimony) can be a lot of fun. The angel and devil recommendation always struck me as an uncharacteristically non-spiritual metaphors for TWI, but just that ... a simple analogy. On the second and third topics, I did not leave the class with any sense that wife was consigned to an inferior "door-mat" position in marriage. Though the "Leaders" of TWI was reprehensible in the way they treated their wives, I did not see this as being overtly taught in the CFS. Rather, the emphasis was on the "Virtuous Woman" of Proverbs, who is basically the financial manager for the household. She buys and sells, deals in real estate, makes business decisions, etc. in addition to childrearing and homemaking. She doesn't just stay at home and iron sheets and pillowcases for her MOG. It did strike me as strange that CFS had so little reference to biblical prohibitions against extramarital and premarital sex. I think these were inconvenient for two reasons. First, like he said of Peter Wade, VPW didn't like I Corinthians 6 or any of the other explicit prohibitions. Second, it would alienate the many libertines who were attracted to TWI. One of the reasons TWI's members were called groovy Christians because they could openly drink and smoke and were unusually affectionate in public. It was not much of a stretch to extrapolate this public behavior to more promiscuous private behavior. I was single at the time, and one of the attractions of CFS was to learn the scriptural justification for premarital sex, which though private seemed commonplace amongst Wayfers. I recall that I was disappointed in this regard ... CFS offered no such justification. On the other hand, it didn't come down too strong against premarital sex. Though I understood that one shouldn't sin so that grace would abound, it is the Grace Administration after all ... My recollection is that the original sin of Eve was presented as an unsupported theory rather than a scriptural truth. It is about as good a theory as I've heard since the commandment was "be fruitful and multiply", but it's just another inherently unprovable theory ... which, of course, means it's a worthless theory. From what I've read here at GS, Martindale elaborated extensively on this theory. Anything Martindale did, of course, should be considered separately from CFS. That egotistical jerk couldn't properly interpret John 3:16 much less a problematic allegory in Genesis. Of course, this may have been a lockbox Corps doctrine that remained undisclosed to lowly believers like myself even while VPW was alive. I'll leave it to Corps folks to rule on that. My own opinion about CFS is that it was taught to make money, not to corrupt the virtue of Wayfers. Wayfers were most young, highly interested in sex, and beginning to form new families. The demand for such a class was there, and VPW was happy to supply it for a fee. The topic created some difficulty because of his penchant for young women, so he skirted the topic of adultery. Other than that, though, I don't recall anything evil in the class. Parts were indeed weird, however, as previous posters attest. SkepTex

Weirwille stole MAGGIE MUGGINS, HENRY BOLOKO, AND JOHNNY JUMPUP? That's not low; it's lame.

ping