There seems to have been some debate above about whether the pictures shown in CFS were porn (implication- "that's bad") or nothing more than you'd see on statues in the Capitol or broadcast TV (implication- "that's OK").
What was in the pictures? If they showed erections, women's genitals, couples having oral sex or intercourse, then apparently this is equivalent to X rated movies today (I don't know exactly, since I've never seen an X rated movie and avoid R unless its a movei of subtsance and I can fast forward through R portions which often are less than 2-3 minutes). Frontal nudity would gain an R rating today - not for people under 17.
In either case, such pictures in theaters are prohibbited to those under 17. Why would a "Christian" class have looser standards than secular society?
In the case of any material that would garner an X rating in theaters- there is certainly no place for that in a Christian class either.
So- what was the content of the photos and were they R or X ?
So- what was the content of the photos and were they R or X ?
Content:
Nudity, foreplay, afterglow, genitalia (both male and female) He even had photos of different shaped penises.
And lots of aside comments like "aren't her breasts just beeeeautiful?" and "isn't that gorgeous?"
Those probably aren't exact quotes. Pretty darn close, though. I'm sure there are others here who remember the asides as well.
R or X Rating:
By today's standards, they would probably be R though I think in the early 1970s they would have been considered X (was there a rating system in place back then?). Certainly not appropriate for students as young as 13 years old. Yes, there were many students that young. One poster even stated he was 11 when he took the class. Wierwille rationalized this by saying---and I think this is a quote----"What better place to learn this stuff than in the family?"
How someone could defend this drivel by implying it's part of some great knowledge that hadn't been known since the first century is beyond my comprehension. Unless, perhaps, they too had been part of wierwille's secret little club and feel a need to exonerate him in order to vicariously exonerate themselves.
Nudity, foreplay, afterglow, genitalia (both male and female) He even had photos of different shaped penises.
And lots of aside comments like "aren't her breasts just beeeeautiful?" and "isn't that gorgeous?"
Those probably aren't exact quotes. Pretty darn close, though. I'm sure there are others here who remember the asides as well.
R or X Rating:
By today's standards, they would probably be R though I think in the early 1970s they would have been considered X (was there a rating system in place back then?). Certainly not appropriate for students as young as 13 years old. Yes, there were many students that young. One poster even stated he was 11 when he took the class. Wierwille rationalized this by saying---and I think this is a quote----"What better place to learn this stuff than in the family?"
How someone could defend this drivel by implying it's part of some great knowledge that hadn't been known since the first century is beyond my comprehension. Unless, perhaps, they too had been part of wierwille's secret little club and feel a need to exonerate him in order to vicariously exonerate themselves.
Wouldn't up-close photos of different shaped penises.......front view, side view, white penis, black penis, different types of penises......be X rated even in today's standards?
And...........especially to 16 year olds? [.....wasn't that a requirement? ]
And...........from a country preacher who was not qualified in this area?
I would think that showing a picture of a penis, like non-erect, would most likely be an NC-17. But then again, maybe an R, the Dewey Cox movie with an R, had that, again, my memory. As far as breasts, I may be absolutely off and incorrect on this, wasn't that James Bond movie, the one with the cute black chick, ah..memory, the same one who was in Swordfish...anyway, wasn't that a PG, and there was that shot of her breasts on the lounge chair? Ya, the X was back in the 70's, its still around in places, mainstream movies go with the MPAA process, small "adult industry", don't do the process, they merely go with local standards and regulations.
Regardless, to me, the porn aspects of CF&S that the thread are talking about, at that point in my life were all unknowns, seeing different sizes and shapes of breasts and penises was all new ground/territory. The dog thing was like, ok, I think I might be better off remembering that, put that away in a black box.
What I was looking forward to, from word of mouth, about the CS&F class was the desire to learn about dating. I was way slow in the dating area, and I really did want to get it right, and as it was, CS&F didn't do it for me. In that regard, I would infer, in very little seriousness that my mother would have approved of that, me not having a clue about dating...ya, its sad..
There seems to have been some debate above about whether the pictures shown in CFS were porn (implication- "that's bad") or nothing more than you'd see on statues in the Capitol or broadcast TV (implication- "that's OK").
What was in the pictures? If they showed erections, women's genitals, couples having oral sex or intercourse, then apparently this is equivalent to X rated movies today (I don't know exactly, since I've never seen an X rated movie and avoid R unless its a movei of subtsance and I can fast forward through R portions which often are less than 2-3 minutes). Frontal nudity would gain an R rating today - not for people under 17.
What if it were presented as a biology or anatomy class? You can have a "scientific" (I only use this in quotes because we're talking about VPW) view of sex and anatomy without it being pornographic. The purpose of pornography is to sexually arouse someone. I didn't see CF&S as something that would be arousing people, although when I took it, I'm sure it had been heavily modified from the original.
Still, your comments about fast forwarding through R-rated portions of movies makes me curious. What about violence? PG movies can have violence in them, yet sex has to be deemed X-rated. Why is that? Why are we so afraid of body parts yet give murder and torture a free pass? In Europe, they show womens' breasts on TV with no problem, and nobody makes a big deal out of it. Yet they wouldn't show the amount of violence you would see on your average show of 24.
Doesn't it say bad things about our society, especially amongst Christianity, that we make such a huge deal to demonize sex and intimacy, and turn around and glorify violence?
In either case, such pictures in theaters are prohibbited to those under 17. Why would a "Christian" class have looser standards than secular society?
In the case of any material that would garner an X rating in theaters- there is certainly no place for that in a Christian class either.
Actually, in school they show similar pictures in sexual education classes and in anatomy classes. Again though, the purpose is not for arousal, and you clearly see that it's not "sexy".
What if it were presented as a biology or anatomy class? You can have a "scientific" (I only use this in quotes because we're talking about VPW) view of sex and anatomy without it being pornographic. The purpose of pornography is to sexually arouse someone. I didn't see CF&S as something that would be arousing people, although when I took it, I'm sure it had been heavily modified from the original.
Still, your comments about fast forwarding through R-rated portions of movies makes me curious. What about violence? PG movies can have violence in them, yet sex has to be deemed X-rated. Why is that? Why are we so afraid of body parts yet give murder and torture a free pass? In Europe, they show womens' breasts on TV with no problem, and nobody makes a big deal out of it. Yet they wouldn't show the amount of violence you would see on your average show of 24.
Doesn't it say bad things about our society, especially amongst Christianity, that we make such a huge deal to demonize sex and intimacy, and turn around and glorify violence?
Actually, in school they show similar pictures in sexual education classes and in anatomy classes. Again though, the purpose is not for arousal, and you clearly see that it's not "sexy".
I agree with what you have said here. Violence, hey whatever, sex, nudity, whoa...need a cut here, a cut there in the film or NC-17. The U.S. is surely way too much on the "moral" agenda, and it most likely won't change.
Just a side-line, back to CF&S, I can surely say that the class was arousing, it was not arousing because of the content, it was arousing because I hadn't had any sexual relations in the prior three years...so it didn't take much of anything on that score..
Boy, I'm glad I can't remember much about this class. I do remember one class where there was some dissection of Song of Solomon and the alleged sexual allusions in that - was that CFS? Or maybe New Life (a Corps class)? That's really all I think I remember and sincerely don't want to drag anything else back into mind.
Still, your comments about fast forwarding through R-rated portions of movies makes me curious. What about violence? PG movies can have violence in them, yet sex has to be deemed X-rated. Why is that? Why are we so afraid of body parts yet give murder and torture a free pass? In Europe, they show womens' breasts on TV with no problem, and nobody makes a big deal out of it. Yet they wouldn't show the amount of violence you would see on your average show of 24.
Doesn't it say bad things about our society, especially amongst Christianity, that we make such a huge deal to demonize sex and intimacy, and turn around and glorify violence?
Too right, P-Mosh. I've always wondered why Americans are so prissy about a breast or a bare bottom. It doesn't have to be provocative. And bear (bare?) in mind that most movies are Hollywood so shot with US money and manage to have body parts on display. Yet the whole hippy "free love" thing emanated from the US - in other words, the display of body parts didn't have anything to do with loosening sexual boundaries in the US.
The violence and wanton destruction in some US movies is horrendous. Gratuitous. And I think that watching too much violence without also showing repercussions does break down mental boundaries. But that's another thread should anyone care to go there.
Boy, I'm glad I can't remember much about this class. I do remember one class where there was some dissection of Song of Solomon and the alleged sexual allusions in that - was that CFS? Or maybe New Life (a Corps class)? That's really all I think I remember and sincerely don't want to drag anything else back into mind.
Too right, P-Mosh. I've always wondered why Americans are so prissy about a breast or a bare bottom. It doesn't have to be provocative. And bear (bare?) in mind that most movies are Hollywood so shot with US money and manage to have body parts on display. Yet the whole hippy "free love" thing emanated from the US - in other words, the display of body parts didn't have anything to do with loosening sexual boundaries in the US.
The violence and wanton destruction in some US movies is horrendous. Gratuitous. And I think that watching too much violence without also showing repercussions does break down mental boundaries. But that's another thread should anyone care to go there.
Yeah, off topic, go, go..
Another one of these wierd things about differences, the U.S. and Europe, specifically the U.K.. is commercials regarding alcohol. Here, alcohol and sexy women and men getting lucky with sexy woman with alcohol, and even sexy hamburger and soda commercials are the way of the world and media..in the U.K. they diligently tone down the sexual part with regard to alcohol consumption, I have a friend from the UK, we worked together on computers and we would watch the television and a beer commercial would come and and he frequently would say to me that that commercial would never be allowed on the tv in england...maybe its changed, but I dont think so..
Eroticism aside, what benefit was supposed to be derived by showing several differently shaped breasts and penises and making smarmy comments about them? Sure, I know that body parts are shown in sex ed. but I really doubt the instructors make comments like "aren't they gorgeous?" and "now that's a dandy!" (Paraphrased comments), especially to kids as young as 11 and 13 years old. This class had no business being presented as Biblical research and teaching.
Eroticism aside, what benefit was supposed to be derived by showing several differently shaped breasts and penises and making smarmy comments about them? Sure, I know that body parts are shown in sex ed. but I really doubt the instructors make comments like "aren't they gorgeous?" and "now that's a dandy!" (Paraphrased comments), especially to kids as young as 11 and 13 years old. This class had no business being presented as Biblical research and teaching.
I agree with you Waysider, and yet I think, I think I understand it. Remember that story Doctor used to tell about the guy in the Way Corps who didn't know anything about a shovel...he went on with something like, "he thought it was to poke holes in the ground". From that perspective I think it makes sense, like, I knew before TWI how a shovel was used...but I did not know that there were "shovel shaped penises or breasts"....ya, thats bad, but its all I got..
Was the last version any more clear on the biblical stance against premarital sex, adultery and sex outside marriage than W's and M's classes were?
yes. all were expressly forbidden.
I think that clas also had a lot more emphasis on the man being the head and the woman being his servant. since I was recently divorced, it pretty much seemed designed to make me condemn myself.
Or do you mean, forbidden in the sense of whetting the appetite to do exactly the opposite?
no, seriously. the coulters might be nice to look at (probably why they were picked to be the teachers), but let me tell you they drone on and on, and they droned on and on about celibacy if you're single, and also about how no believer should look outside of the household for a mate, and if there isn't a mate for you, then no sex, ever. since I was already dating an "unbeliever" who I really liked, I had a conversation with god about it, I can tell you.
the class the coulters taught was all about what you can't do.
Wow, Potato, that's a bit of a turn-round. Musta been after they got really scared by LCM's shining example.
No, wait, his example was to mate everyone in the household.
I have a dim recollection somewhere (CFS??) of VPW saying that some rules applied when we were younger but not necessarily when we were older. You tell a five year old not to do something (for his own good - like not crossing the road alone) but you don't need to tell a 25 year old, who has by now learned how to cross safely. I think the inference (don't think it was explicit) was that sex was out for young kids/ teenagers but for adults it was a normal part of life.
......but let me tell you they drone on and on, and they droned on and on about celibacy if you're single, and also about how no believer should look outside of the household for a mate, and if there isn't a mate for you, then no sex, ever. since I was already dating an "unbeliever" who I really liked, I had a conversation with god about it, I can tell you.
the class the coulters taught was all about what you can't do.
Sounds like the Coulters are calling on cultees to stay in the cult...!!!
Same spewth as wierwille.......corps marry corps, twi-followers marry twi-followers. Guess that even in a "kinder, gentler organization" one still has to push for CONTROL........more subtle control, of course.
Wow, Potato, that's a bit of a turn-round. Musta been after they got really scared by LCM's shining example.
<snip>
yeah, it sure was a turn-around, and I do feel that it was a PR move:
"see how christian we are? we teach our people that it's not ok to be promiscuous or to commit adultery. sex before marriage???? no way!!!!!! craig martindale? excuse me, can you repeat the question??? I've never heard of any craig martindale, but look at how edifying this class is!!!!!"
There are several very important Bible passages on Christian family including:
+ 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “neither the sexually immoral... nor adulterers... will inherit the kingdom of God”
+ Galatians 5:19, “the acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality”
+ Hebrews 13:4, “marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral”
+ Ephesians 5:3, “there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality”
+ Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, “ adultery, sexual immorality... these are what make a man unclean”
+ Matthew 5:32, 19:7-9, Mark 10:4, 11-12, “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery”
+ Matthew 5:27-28, “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”
+ Exodus 20, “do not commit adultery”
In my class on teachings of the Bible which I teach to middle school and early high school kids, we read them all and three are memory verses, even though the part of family and sex is only about 10% as long as CF&S.
During CF&S, Wierwille quotes 66 Scripture passages (Instructors Guide for Christian Family and Sex, 1975, pp. 3-5). Students also refer to the “Scripture Sheet” which cites 47 Bible passages. This totals 113 passages between the two, which are a lot of Bible citations. (Some passages appear in both of these places, and chapters like Genesis 2 are cited more than once. If you combine these and allow for overlap, there are about 52 different sections of the Bible cited.)
QUIZ:
**** How many of the eight verses I quote above do you think Wierwille cites in his CF&S class? ****
...In closing, I would note that women inherently are better communicators than men, the left side and the right side of their brain is physically far better connected than men. In my own life, I have spent a great deal of time in learning HOW to communicate and HOW to listen, due to this specific capability of women.
I agree this is generally true, but should be qualified as "in general" or "for the most part" as there are many exceptions to the rule. In my case, I happen to be more into communication, and my wife has had to learn it. But I understand we are unusual.
I agree this is generally true, but should be qualified as "in general" or "for the most part" as there are many exceptions to the rule. In my case, I happen to be more into communication, and my wife has had to learn it. But I understand we are unusual.
And, of course I agree with you Mark. Writing is the task of writing and re-writing. I am most likely less detailed that you are with regard to postings. Writing and posting for me is a balance of time and quality. I do endeavor to qualify my statements, however there will be holes in those qualifiers. The use of language, words, is a refined skill. Your response to me is quite welcomed and I do appreciate the feedback. For me its one of those iron sharpening iron affairs. And to me, the even bigger picture is that life tends to bring to each of us a challenge to grow, learn, develop, as in, if I have failed or ignored how to deal effectively with say some circumstance, it may disappear for a while, but it will come back in another form to challenge me again.
Personally, I do not like words, specifically labels, in that the older I get the more it feels like labels have a spectrum of meaning. Self qualification, I feel is almost always better than stating information as fact. So, turn around is "fair play". The statement, "I happen to be more into communication...", then I read to mean "I feel I happen to be more into communication..." So, yes we, I believe are on the same page, please do feel free to offer any and all constructive criticism with my postings. regards, michael
They did not give out syllabus except for a scripture sheet and a handout on The Virtuous Woman. The Corps classes did have a syllabus about 40 pages and as Im looking the ever present Final exam. also a instructers guide.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
25
10
13
Popular Days
Jan 18
76
Jan 19
41
Mar 10
12
Jan 17
6
Top Posters In This Topic
WhiteDove 19 posts
waysider 25 posts
potato 10 posts
mchud11 13 posts
Popular Days
Jan 18 2009
76 posts
Jan 19 2009
41 posts
Mar 10 2009
12 posts
Jan 17 2009
6 posts
Popular Posts
potato
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 to
potato
according to vpw, the original sin was masturbation. according to lcm, it was homosexuality.
potato
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.
johnj
There seems to have been some debate above about whether the pictures shown in CFS were porn (implication- "that's bad") or nothing more than you'd see on statues in the Capitol or broadcast TV (implication- "that's OK").
What was in the pictures? If they showed erections, women's genitals, couples having oral sex or intercourse, then apparently this is equivalent to X rated movies today (I don't know exactly, since I've never seen an X rated movie and avoid R unless its a movei of subtsance and I can fast forward through R portions which often are less than 2-3 minutes). Frontal nudity would gain an R rating today - not for people under 17.
In either case, such pictures in theaters are prohibbited to those under 17. Why would a "Christian" class have looser standards than secular society?
In the case of any material that would garner an X rating in theaters- there is certainly no place for that in a Christian class either.
So- what was the content of the photos and were they R or X ?
Edited by johnjLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Content:
Nudity, foreplay, afterglow, genitalia (both male and female) He even had photos of different shaped penises.
And lots of aside comments like "aren't her breasts just beeeeautiful?" and "isn't that gorgeous?"
Those probably aren't exact quotes. Pretty darn close, though. I'm sure there are others here who remember the asides as well.
R or X Rating:
By today's standards, they would probably be R though I think in the early 1970s they would have been considered X (was there a rating system in place back then?). Certainly not appropriate for students as young as 13 years old. Yes, there were many students that young. One poster even stated he was 11 when he took the class. Wierwille rationalized this by saying---and I think this is a quote----"What better place to learn this stuff than in the family?"
How someone could defend this drivel by implying it's part of some great knowledge that hadn't been known since the first century is beyond my comprehension. Unless, perhaps, they too had been part of wierwille's secret little club and feel a need to exonerate him in order to vicariously exonerate themselves.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Wouldn't up-close photos of different shaped penises.......front view, side view, white penis, black penis, different types of penises......be X rated even in today's standards?
And...........especially to 16 year olds? [.....wasn't that a requirement? ]
And...........from a country preacher who was not qualified in this area?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
I really am loving this discussion.
I would think that showing a picture of a penis, like non-erect, would most likely be an NC-17. But then again, maybe an R, the Dewey Cox movie with an R, had that, again, my memory. As far as breasts, I may be absolutely off and incorrect on this, wasn't that James Bond movie, the one with the cute black chick, ah..memory, the same one who was in Swordfish...anyway, wasn't that a PG, and there was that shot of her breasts on the lounge chair? Ya, the X was back in the 70's, its still around in places, mainstream movies go with the MPAA process, small "adult industry", don't do the process, they merely go with local standards and regulations.
Regardless, to me, the porn aspects of CF&S that the thread are talking about, at that point in my life were all unknowns, seeing different sizes and shapes of breasts and penises was all new ground/territory. The dog thing was like, ok, I think I might be better off remembering that, put that away in a black box.
What I was looking forward to, from word of mouth, about the CS&F class was the desire to learn about dating. I was way slow in the dating area, and I really did want to get it right, and as it was, CS&F didn't do it for me. In that regard, I would infer, in very little seriousness that my mother would have approved of that, me not having a clue about dating...ya, its sad..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
What if it were presented as a biology or anatomy class? You can have a "scientific" (I only use this in quotes because we're talking about VPW) view of sex and anatomy without it being pornographic. The purpose of pornography is to sexually arouse someone. I didn't see CF&S as something that would be arousing people, although when I took it, I'm sure it had been heavily modified from the original.
Still, your comments about fast forwarding through R-rated portions of movies makes me curious. What about violence? PG movies can have violence in them, yet sex has to be deemed X-rated. Why is that? Why are we so afraid of body parts yet give murder and torture a free pass? In Europe, they show womens' breasts on TV with no problem, and nobody makes a big deal out of it. Yet they wouldn't show the amount of violence you would see on your average show of 24.
Doesn't it say bad things about our society, especially amongst Christianity, that we make such a huge deal to demonize sex and intimacy, and turn around and glorify violence?
Actually, in school they show similar pictures in sexual education classes and in anatomy classes. Again though, the purpose is not for arousal, and you clearly see that it's not "sexy".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
I agree with what you have said here. Violence, hey whatever, sex, nudity, whoa...need a cut here, a cut there in the film or NC-17. The U.S. is surely way too much on the "moral" agenda, and it most likely won't change.
Just a side-line, back to CF&S, I can surely say that the class was arousing, it was not arousing because of the content, it was arousing because I hadn't had any sexual relations in the prior three years...so it didn't take much of anything on that score..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Boy, I'm glad I can't remember much about this class. I do remember one class where there was some dissection of Song of Solomon and the alleged sexual allusions in that - was that CFS? Or maybe New Life (a Corps class)? That's really all I think I remember and sincerely don't want to drag anything else back into mind.
Too right, P-Mosh. I've always wondered why Americans are so prissy about a breast or a bare bottom. It doesn't have to be provocative. And bear (bare?) in mind that most movies are Hollywood so shot with US money and manage to have body parts on display. Yet the whole hippy "free love" thing emanated from the US - in other words, the display of body parts didn't have anything to do with loosening sexual boundaries in the US.
The violence and wanton destruction in some US movies is horrendous. Gratuitous. And I think that watching too much violence without also showing repercussions does break down mental boundaries. But that's another thread should anyone care to go there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
Yeah, off topic, go, go..
Another one of these wierd things about differences, the U.S. and Europe, specifically the U.K.. is commercials regarding alcohol. Here, alcohol and sexy women and men getting lucky with sexy woman with alcohol, and even sexy hamburger and soda commercials are the way of the world and media..in the U.K. they diligently tone down the sexual part with regard to alcohol consumption, I have a friend from the UK, we worked together on computers and we would watch the television and a beer commercial would come and and he frequently would say to me that that commercial would never be allowed on the tv in england...maybe its changed, but I dont think so..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Eroticism aside, what benefit was supposed to be derived by showing several differently shaped breasts and penises and making smarmy comments about them? Sure, I know that body parts are shown in sex ed. but I really doubt the instructors make comments like "aren't they gorgeous?" and "now that's a dandy!" (Paraphrased comments), especially to kids as young as 11 and 13 years old. This class had no business being presented as Biblical research and teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
I agree with you Waysider, and yet I think, I think I understand it. Remember that story Doctor used to tell about the guy in the Way Corps who didn't know anything about a shovel...he went on with something like, "he thought it was to poke holes in the ground". From that perspective I think it makes sense, like, I knew before TWI how a shovel was used...but I did not know that there were "shovel shaped penises or breasts"....ya, thats bad, but its all I got..
Edited by mchud11Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
How were Wierwille's, Martindale's and Coulter's versions of the sex and family class similar?
How were they different?
Was the last version any more clear on the biblical stance against premarital sex, adultery and sex outside marriage than W's and M's classes were?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
yes. all were expressly forbidden.
I think that clas also had a lot more emphasis on the man being the head and the woman being his servant. since I was recently divorced, it pretty much seemed designed to make me condemn myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
coulter stressed authority (husband over wife, parents over kids). It gave me chills. More of the same.
they (the coulters) also stressed not talking about previous relationships. We can only guess why.
they may have touched on premarital relations but I was married by then.
Joseph in exodus was blamed for potter's wife hitting on him. (he was slothful, not believing to not commit adultry)
no pictures of anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
A man got blamed for something? :blink:
Potato - "All were expressly forbidden" - ?????
C'mon, don't make me laugh.
Or do you mean, forbidden in the sense of whetting the appetite to do exactly the opposite?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
no, seriously. the coulters might be nice to look at (probably why they were picked to be the teachers), but let me tell you they drone on and on, and they droned on and on about celibacy if you're single, and also about how no believer should look outside of the household for a mate, and if there isn't a mate for you, then no sex, ever. since I was already dating an "unbeliever" who I really liked, I had a conversation with god about it, I can tell you.
the class the coulters taught was all about what you can't do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Don't you remember all the talk about the ministry needing a "woman's touch?"
"the coulters might be nice to look at" - Mrs C scares the crap out of me.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Wow, Potato, that's a bit of a turn-round. Musta been after they got really scared by LCM's shining example.
No, wait, his example was to mate everyone in the household.
I have a dim recollection somewhere (CFS??) of VPW saying that some rules applied when we were younger but not necessarily when we were older. You tell a five year old not to do something (for his own good - like not crossing the road alone) but you don't need to tell a 25 year old, who has by now learned how to cross safely. I think the inference (don't think it was explicit) was that sex was out for young kids/ teenagers but for adults it was a normal part of life.
Sound familiar, anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Sounds like the Coulters are calling on cultees to stay in the cult...!!!
Same spewth as wierwille.......corps marry corps, twi-followers marry twi-followers. Guess that even in a "kinder, gentler organization" one still has to push for CONTROL........more subtle control, of course.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
yeah, it sure was a turn-around, and I do feel that it was a PR move:
"see how christian we are? we teach our people that it's not ok to be promiscuous or to commit adultery. sex before marriage???? no way!!!!!! craig martindale? excuse me, can you repeat the question??? I've never heard of any craig martindale, but look at how edifying this class is!!!!!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
There are several very important Bible passages on Christian family including:
+ 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “neither the sexually immoral... nor adulterers... will inherit the kingdom of God”
+ Galatians 5:19, “the acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality”
+ Hebrews 13:4, “marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral”
+ Ephesians 5:3, “there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality”
+ Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, “ adultery, sexual immorality... these are what make a man unclean”
+ Matthew 5:32, 19:7-9, Mark 10:4, 11-12, “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery”
+ Matthew 5:27-28, “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”
+ Exodus 20, “do not commit adultery”
In my class on teachings of the Bible which I teach to middle school and early high school kids, we read them all and three are memory verses, even though the part of family and sex is only about 10% as long as CF&S.
During CF&S, Wierwille quotes 66 Scripture passages (Instructors Guide for Christian Family and Sex, 1975, pp. 3-5). Students also refer to the “Scripture Sheet” which cites 47 Bible passages. This totals 113 passages between the two, which are a lot of Bible citations. (Some passages appear in both of these places, and chapters like Genesis 2 are cited more than once. If you combine these and allow for overlap, there are about 52 different sections of the Bible cited.)
QUIZ:
**** How many of the eight verses I quote above do you think Wierwille cites in his CF&S class? ****
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
None. Dude's dead a buried.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I agree this is generally true, but should be qualified as "in general" or "for the most part" as there are many exceptions to the rule. In my case, I happen to be more into communication, and my wife has had to learn it. But I understand we are unusual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
And, of course I agree with you Mark. Writing is the task of writing and re-writing. I am most likely less detailed that you are with regard to postings. Writing and posting for me is a balance of time and quality. I do endeavor to qualify my statements, however there will be holes in those qualifiers. The use of language, words, is a refined skill. Your response to me is quite welcomed and I do appreciate the feedback. For me its one of those iron sharpening iron affairs. And to me, the even bigger picture is that life tends to bring to each of us a challenge to grow, learn, develop, as in, if I have failed or ignored how to deal effectively with say some circumstance, it may disappear for a while, but it will come back in another form to challenge me again.
Personally, I do not like words, specifically labels, in that the older I get the more it feels like labels have a spectrum of meaning. Self qualification, I feel is almost always better than stating information as fact. So, turn around is "fair play". The statement, "I happen to be more into communication...", then I read to mean "I feel I happen to be more into communication..." So, yes we, I believe are on the same page, please do feel free to offer any and all constructive criticism with my postings. regards, michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
From this thread:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=283
post Sep 18 2003, 11:25 PM
Post #11
WD said:
They did not give out syllabus except for a scripture sheet and a handout on The Virtuous Woman. The Corps classes did have a syllabus about 40 pages and as Im looking the ever present Final exam. also a instructers guide.
Edited by waysiderLink 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.