Rotties thread (Isuggest you reread all the posts ) was about WHAT was IN the class. NOT about VPW OR CRAIG or THE Way. My concern if you will read my prev posts was not in defending VPV but that people speak the truth as I said previously there are plenty of things wrong with the way but we dont need to misquote things. I was only correcting the misquotes. I am sure that you would not want people attributing things to you that you did not say.
Without Coffee
I Would Have No Personality At All
[This message was edited by WhiteDove on September 20, 2003 at 23:12.]
Okay, I read White Dove's post and you did hurt me.
I accept your apology.
So, I am back!
Your view point on Weirwille seems to still be that of respect or wishing there was something to respect.
We have all been there and some are still there.
I do not think this is about respect in Weirwille as much as we try to find something "nice" about his life so WE do not have to feel so dam n stupid.
If I believe TWI was OKAY then went bad, I feel better about me.... Then, I was not REALLY deceived, I got into a GOOD ministry and it went bad.
To recognize VPW was a sexaul pervert who took us all for a ride --- means you have to deal with yourself/myself/ourselves in understanding we WERE THAT tricked!!! That deceived!!!! That taken advantage of!!!
To say VPW taught some good Bible is like saying John Wayne Gacey wasn't all bad because he could paint.
"So what was the Christian Family and Sex class about?"
That is NOT asking what was IN the class. It was asking what is was about. It was about a pervert who dressed up his perversion with a few sound bites and dumped it on the members of his cult -- US!
hey white dove i am so tired of that shpeel sp? about sticking to the question okay ? if we're gonna talk about the frikkin class we're gonna talk about the frikkin nutcase who taught it
Sorry White Dove, we were having fun with some things, maybe some things were not exactly right. But we were having fun not trying to reconstruct the class. If that is what Rottie wanted I did not pick up on that.
So, I think we stepped on your toes and what you were trying to say here BUT you did not see that we were having a good time.
We don't have his syllabuses around, most of us burned it. A lot of us have been HURT by the idiot pretending to be a MOG, and you came across like you were reproving us or something...
I dunno....
If you want to speak of it doctrinally maybe down there in the doctrinal area. I think most of us were not expecting that -- Although it is open for ALL opinions.
Just seemed like you were rallying behind a sexual pervert who tried to teach us about sex.
You were concerned about the readers ? so you wrote the nice things VPW said in the class, when many of us were approached, seduced or forced into things by this guy! I am not going to report the WORDS of the class accurately because THEY are deceptive. They mask ? they hide? They make a wicked man seem like a nice family guy trying to help his followers. I think your words were more damaging, but I do understand that was NOT your internet.
You were just trying to capture the WORDS in the class. But we were ?capturing? the teacher. I would rather people read what we said, honestly. Than the lies he said. His lies make him believable and we know he was diddling everything he could behind the camera.
((((White Dove)))))
Joniam ? My God. You are a brave guy. God loves you and thanks for your courage to share
To answer the question about when the CF & S class was offered until, our last CF & S class was run in about 1986. After that not too many classes such as the Way Tree, etc., were offered anymore. Just a BIG push on PFAL classes.
We need to realize that the orig. CF & S class was taped in the 1970's, 30 years ago!! The attitudes and thinking were much different than today. Today someone is offended if a person sneezes the wrong way. It was not that way back in the 70's. Gays dared not stand up for themselves, divorced people had a stigma to them, etc. Lots has changed since then. Dr. W would never be able to say what he did in that class if it was made for the post modern culture of today.
Before I posted I sent rottie a pt and talked with her. She told me to feel free to post any corrections that I found or other items of interest. That was my intent no other motive. I took her question to mean what was the class about. and was just trying to make sure the info presented was correct and honest.
Anyone for barbecued bird with a side of baked beans.
Now, I see why you were posting the "actual class"
Fried Dove, usually if people are talking and someone says "He said the vagina is ugly" and you do not see that in your notes, then just say so.
It was the other things I addressed that just seemed accusatory.
If you had said "Hey, I ran and got the syllabus and I do not see that written anywhere."
The response may have been something like, "Oh, I thought he said it maybe it was someone in the class" and it would have been over.
It just came across like you were trying to push the integrity of the class on the posters and many of us feel VPW has no integrity, therefore the class would be fruit of the posion tree.
You entered the thread from a place I do not think people recognized. I know I did not see you as trying to verbatum say what was in the class. As I said, it appeared you were trying to push its intergrity.
Then, it seemed like you put people down for talking.
This wasn't a group of people wanting to TAKE the class, we were talking as if we were all sitting around the living room.
(((((White Dove))))) If you meant things the way they sounded then I am sorry but being on the menu is where you belonged. But you didn't mean it like that. I do not think anyone KNEW where you were coming from. And we weren't coming from the same place.
So, I will make sure you are not on the menu and hopefully you were not in the oven too long.
This reminds me of an episode of Frasier. He is always "so exact" so black and white "This means that" "dealing only in facts" that sometimes when others are just talking he misses it.
By the same token, sometimes Roz is yacking away, getting out in left field and Fraiser will have to remind her what she was talking about.
So, the Roz in me wants the Fraiser in you to know I NOW think you meant no harm to anybody.
(((((Fraiser))))))
Fraiser there will be no dove on the menu tonight.
no apology needed! I still don't know if you are clear on what I ment though. I don't dislike your sense of humor and there was no but intended in my post. I do understand that it protects you and that was what I was trying to say there is another side to you I know even though I haven't met you you are a very special lady.
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.
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
WhiteDove
We were scammed
I'll give this one more shot.
Rotties thread (Isuggest you reread all the posts ) was about WHAT was IN the class. NOT about VPW OR CRAIG or THE Way. My concern if you will read my prev posts was not in defending VPV but that people speak the truth as I said previously there are plenty of things wrong with the way but we dont need to misquote things. I was only correcting the misquotes. I am sure that you would not want people attributing things to you that you did not say.
Without Coffee
I Would Have No Personality At All
[This message was edited by WhiteDove on September 20, 2003 at 23:12.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Okay, I read White Dove's post and you did hurt me.
I accept your apology.
So, I am back!
Your view point on Weirwille seems to still be that of respect or wishing there was something to respect.
We have all been there and some are still there.
I do not think this is about respect in Weirwille as much as we try to find something "nice" about his life so WE do not have to feel so dam n stupid.
If I believe TWI was OKAY then went bad, I feel better about me.... Then, I was not REALLY deceived, I got into a GOOD ministry and it went bad.
To recognize VPW was a sexaul pervert who took us all for a ride --- means you have to deal with yourself/myself/ourselves in understanding we WERE THAT tricked!!! That deceived!!!! That taken advantage of!!!
To say VPW taught some good Bible is like saying John Wayne Gacey wasn't all bad because he could paint.
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Rottie said
"So what was the Christian Family and Sex class about?"
That is NOT asking what was IN the class. It was asking what is was about. It was about a pervert who dressed up his perversion with a few sound bites and dumped it on the members of his cult -- US!
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WeWereScammed
WD,
I agree - misquoting is of no benefit.
I respect your position - I hope you can respect mine.
Correct - I got enough of that in TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dottie you said you were going away
hey white dove i am so tired of that shpeel sp? about sticking to the question okay ? if we're gonna talk about the frikkin class we're gonna talk about the frikkin nutcase who taught it
okay ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
PS
But WD, NOW I see that you were just trying to present "the class" like the words in the class, the material.
I think a lot of us were talking PAST the words and having fun with it. It is good to laugh at the crap sometimes. Scammie, your posts were funny.
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
can anyone here PHUCKING talk ? if i have to talk about what i'm talking about one more time
jesus....ingchrist
spare me
kill me
i'm going back to the way
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
No because if you tell a joke or say something about VPW -- IT is still a sin to some people.
We should be able to talk and laugh -- We spent our lives in a cult ran by a pervert---
If you can't laugh then lets just all die of a broken heart!!!
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Ex
I came back (PT)
WD apologized on the thread and I want to acknowledge it. It was kind of him to reach out and do that!
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WeWereScammed
OK, but you'll have to repeat CF&S!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
LOL I bet it would be a lot different watching it as we are a lot older.
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Wow rottie, did you think you would get such a big response out of this question? I bet not. I have a question.
When did they stop from having the class?
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
What I mean is I don't remember the class in the eightys. Just the seventies.
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Vickles I had a class setup to run in 1989 but left before it ran they did run it. october 3d 1989 There was a memo to destroy the old classes.
Without Coffee
I Would Have No Personality At All
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Sorry White Dove, we were having fun with some things, maybe some things were not exactly right. But we were having fun not trying to reconstruct the class. If that is what Rottie wanted I did not pick up on that.
So, I think we stepped on your toes and what you were trying to say here BUT you did not see that we were having a good time.
We don't have his syllabuses around, most of us burned it. A lot of us have been HURT by the idiot pretending to be a MOG, and you came across like you were reproving us or something...
I dunno....
If you want to speak of it doctrinally maybe down there in the doctrinal area. I think most of us were not expecting that -- Although it is open for ALL opinions.
Just seemed like you were rallying behind a sexual pervert who tried to teach us about sex.
You were concerned about the readers ? so you wrote the nice things VPW said in the class, when many of us were approached, seduced or forced into things by this guy! I am not going to report the WORDS of the class accurately because THEY are deceptive. They mask ? they hide? They make a wicked man seem like a nice family guy trying to help his followers. I think your words were more damaging, but I do understand that was NOT your internet.
You were just trying to capture the WORDS in the class. But we were ?capturing? the teacher. I would rather people read what we said, honestly. Than the lies he said. His lies make him believable and we know he was diddling everything he could behind the camera.
((((White Dove)))))
Joniam ? My God. You are a brave guy. God loves you and thanks for your courage to share
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
exousia
To answer the question about when the CF & S class was offered until, our last CF & S class was run in about 1986. After that not too many classes such as the Way Tree, etc., were offered anymore. Just a BIG push on PFAL classes.
We need to realize that the orig. CF & S class was taped in the 1970's, 30 years ago!! The attitudes and thinking were much different than today. Today someone is offended if a person sneezes the wrong way. It was not that way back in the 70's. Gays dared not stand up for themselves, divorced people had a stigma to them, etc. Lots has changed since then. Dr. W would never be able to say what he did in that class if it was made for the post modern culture of today.
We've come a long way, baby, or have we?
exousia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
dot
Before I posted I sent rottie a pt and talked with her. She told me to feel free to post any corrections that I found or other items of interest. That was my intent no other motive. I took her question to mean what was the class about. and was just trying to make sure the info presented was correct and honest.
Anyone for barbecued bird with a side of baked beans.
Without Coffee
I Would Have No Personality At All
Link to comment
Share on other sites
up on high
Whitedove, I'm hungry, serve it up friend!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dear white dove, i'm sorry for my emotions before and calling you black dove. please forgive me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Up my friend
Oh yea now you show up. When the foods ready.
P.S . Havent forgot your email but been a little busy.
Without Coffee
I Would Have No Personality At All
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Now, I see why you were posting the "actual class"
Fried Dove, usually if people are talking and someone says "He said the vagina is ugly" and you do not see that in your notes, then just say so.
It was the other things I addressed that just seemed accusatory.
If you had said "Hey, I ran and got the syllabus and I do not see that written anywhere."
The response may have been something like, "Oh, I thought he said it maybe it was someone in the class" and it would have been over.
It just came across like you were trying to push the integrity of the class on the posters and many of us feel VPW has no integrity, therefore the class would be fruit of the posion tree.
You entered the thread from a place I do not think people recognized. I know I did not see you as trying to verbatum say what was in the class. As I said, it appeared you were trying to push its intergrity.
Then, it seemed like you put people down for talking.
This wasn't a group of people wanting to TAKE the class, we were talking as if we were all sitting around the living room.
(((((White Dove))))) If you meant things the way they sounded then I am sorry but being on the menu is where you belonged. But you didn't mean it like that. I do not think anyone KNEW where you were coming from. And we weren't coming from the same place.
So, I will make sure you are not on the menu and hopefully you were not in the oven too long.
This reminds me of an episode of Frasier. He is always "so exact" so black and white "This means that" "dealing only in facts" that sometimes when others are just talking he misses it.
By the same token, sometimes Roz is yacking away, getting out in left field and Fraiser will have to remind her what she was talking about.
So, the Roz in me wants the Fraiser in you to know I NOW think you meant no harm to anybody.
(((((Fraiser))))))
Fraiser there will be no dove on the menu tonight.
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Excathedra
no apology needed! I still don't know if you are clear on what I ment though. I don't dislike your sense of humor and there was no but intended in my post. I do understand that it protects you and that was what I was trying to say there is another side to you I know even though I haven't met you you are a very special lady.
Without Coffee
I Would Have No Personality At All
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Ex
Private t
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Skeptical Texan
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
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.