Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
March 29, 2024, 05:40:40 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Let's Talk About Sex  (Read 109920 times)
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #80 on: January 19, 2010, 10:40:59 am »

Onan violated a tribal tradition (see Genesis 38) which was apparently one that God had instituted.  To preserve family blood lines and family names an unmarried brother was obligated to wed his brother's sonless widow and raise up sons using the brother's name.  This later was codified as part of the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5).

Onan's sin was in not raising up sons in his brother's name.  To interpret this passage as anything else is an abuse of Scripture.
Logged
wastedyearsthere
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



« Reply #81 on: January 19, 2010, 11:12:04 am »

orgasm = sneeze meaning bodily function. 
Logged
Immortal_Raven
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61



« Reply #82 on: January 19, 2010, 04:54:49 pm »

Aha, thanks for the clarification.  Doesn't change my opinion on their comparison one bit, but thanks.

-Immortal_Raven
Logged

"They gave you lies, and in return you gave them hell."-Tears for Fears
"Chance favors the prepared mind." -unknown
calgal
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #83 on: January 19, 2010, 08:03:49 pm »

I agree with Everastudent that the "Sin of Onanism" is about tribal tradition in the context of prostituation (Tamar seduces Judah, Onan's father).  It always bothers me that is used as argument against masturbation.  So, while masturbating if a man uses a condom and doesn't 'spill' does that make it okay?  Again, why would God leave out any referernce to women then?  How this whole misconception is unversally accepted by Christians is a mystery to me....

Why is Christianity one of the few (or only) religions that has a hard time integrating sexuality in a positive, life-affirming way?  God gave us our bodies to serve him and - and they just happen to be sensual, sexual bodies - and he made us this way!  Why do Christians have such a hard time with that?

Just my two cents.

Calgal
Logged
Rebekah
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113



« Reply #84 on: January 19, 2010, 09:26:04 pm »

Immortal_Raven,
I would almost believe M.D. if he was talking about 90% if the women in GC because, you're right, sex as a woman is all about pleasing the man.

Traditional GC teachings are against birth control. As a high school student, I was once told by a local GC pastor that birth control is a slippery slope to abortion. (This conversation took place in 1998!) He said once you start saying "no" to babies in the form of birth control, you're setting the stage for saying "no" to a baby in the womb. I think that's why there are so many 6, 7, 8 + kids in the first-generation GC families.

I think they're more lenient now, but I think the pill is still looked down on a bit. They're more comfortable with hormone-free forms of birth control.

And let's not even start talking about home births. When I was pregnant, I heard enough gruesome home birthing stories to last a lifetime! (I'm sure it can be beautiful, but, really, there's just some things I don't want to know!)
Logged
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



« Reply #85 on: January 19, 2010, 11:37:44 pm »

GCx’s teaching on sex and gender roles supports the veiw of women as sex objects. While they claim to reject this idea, their teachings speak otherwise.  Yes, they say that women should be judged by their character but they NEVER actually challenge the idea that women are sex objects for male enjoyment. In fact, they reinforce this idea with sermon after sermon on modesty. “Women, your bodies are entirely sexual in nature. Since its only function is sex and procreation, your body must be hidden away until these activities can be performed. If you are not doing one of these things with your husband, your body has no real value.” Think about it. This is the real message being communicated by the modesty talk. Women’s bodies are Never mentioned in any context other than sex or child bearing.

While women’s bodies are sexual in nature, they themselves are anything but. To GCx, women are sex- neutral beings wrapped in a highly sexual body. A women’s sexuality is determined by a man “wanting” her. They are sex-neutral commodities waiting to be activated by men--for men. This is why appearance is so important. A baggy sweatshirt and pants will keep women de-sexualized, until a male “responsibly” sexualizes them through marriage. Women then provide or “gift” men their bodies to be sexualized but do not really want sex, enjoy sex, think about sex, or find their husbands sexually attractive.  A woman’s sexuality is nothing more than her husband’s own desires and fantasies projected onto her body.

Instead of combating age-old sexist beliefs about women, GCx swallows them whole and regurgitates a bizarre system of courtship and marriage based on stereotypes and sexism.  Objectifying women is bad…until you are married. Then magically, it is OK for a wife to be sexually objectified, controlled, and taken advantage of by her husband. Women’s bodies are no longer their own; they have to fulfill their function as sex objects and baby makers. 

The fact is women’s bodies aren’t respected before marriage, and they certainly aren’t afterwards.  Their sexuality is denied in both contexts. It is controlled by men--for men.
Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #86 on: January 20, 2010, 07:12:36 am »

I have never been more aware of my femaleness than when I was in a GC church.  And it wasn't in a good way.
Logged

Glad to be free.
Immortal_Raven
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61



« Reply #87 on: January 20, 2010, 08:38:44 am »

Home births, I forgot about that little subject.  I'm sure it can be great, but so many things can go wrong.  The contractions were causing my wife so much pain at the hospital that her muscles wouldn't relax to let my son through.  She got an epidural and my son was here in two hours.  And that's just one thing that can mess up.  Not to mention I'd rather have a clean and sterile hospital room that I won't have to clean up later.  Risking your own and your child's health to save money and keep some tradition is not worth it.

Women's bodies have no real value aside from babys and sex?  Sad but true in the GC context.  And the reason that women don't like sex:  Their husbands don't care about their needs during sex.  It degrades women as I've already said and makes no logical sense. 

-Immortal_Raven
Logged

"They gave you lies, and in return you gave them hell."-Tears for Fears
"Chance favors the prepared mind." -unknown
wastedyearsthere
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



« Reply #88 on: January 20, 2010, 08:49:12 am »

home births -- this must be something new at GCx -- it wasn't popular when I was there in the 80's and 90's.  Birth control wasn't discouraged either.    These are things that should be up to the couple and not up to what the CHURCH thinks.   

I'm with Agatha -- I never was more aware of my femininity but in a bad way during the time at GCx.  I was reproved for ridiculous things such as showing too much legs by wearing sandals or shorts or when wearing a one piece bathing suit.  And then there was the time our whole household was reproved because we look TOO nice on Sunday mornings -- showing we were worldly.  Spending time on my hair showed I had the wrong values......  constant nuttiness.  I hated summers at GCx -- there would be "The Talk" about clothing and modesty.  No matter what you wore there - if you were an attractive woman you couldn't win!!  I suggested at one point that they handed out Birkas. 

They are still micromanaging women's dress.  I got an e-mail last summer forwarded from Mary Knox.  In the Ames church -- a leader was talking to women not dressed appropriately on Sunday mornings and having them go home and change!  Can you imagine?!!  Where is the Holy Spirit in helping women decide what to wear, what to do.?  The Holy Spirit at GCx seems to be absent and the leaders have to control what the members do!  Cry

Logged
calgal
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #89 on: January 20, 2010, 09:11:23 am »

Boy these recent posts brought back memories....

At the Leadership Training in Silverspring, some 'smartie' suggested we should dress if fashions 10 years old in order to show were not 'worldly.'  The preoccupation with what to wear was/is so bizzare. Can you imagine Jesus today even caring or commenting??  And he hung out with a motley crew - and he PREFERRED to hang out with them than church types!  I like to remember that.

As in our cult (I hate calling it a church) I was one of the first to have a child, we were consulting with some pretty old school leaders for advice on everything.  We were considering home birth and I almost did it.  Being a daughter of a medical doctor, I opted to have my first at the hospital and if all went well, I'd consdier the second at home. Boy was God looking out for me!  My son was born with Group B Strep (a bacteria naturally found in the intestines but colonizes in the uterus at times - this is the fear of infection when a woman's water is broken for more than 24 hours like mine is. Thank goodness women are routinely screened for this as they weren't when I had my baby.) and had an apgar score of 2!  After a week in the hospital he survived but it was close.  I never did have a home birth and did not set a an example for others ... thank goodness.

As for birth control, it was highly discouraged.  I had some health issues (neck injury) so we dediced to "quit" after two.  I think we chose to use the rhythym method (but I'm sure it was after speaking to leadership - frankly it was so long ago, I don't remember, but there was such a desire to please here and b/c we would not having more babies, we would want them to know why....).  Needless to say we had baby number three.  And then baby number four which I lost early on.  So much for 'birth control.."

Ha.

Yes, we were only looked upon for what we could offer to men and a 'quiver full' was part of that deal.

calgal
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #90 on: January 20, 2010, 09:20:42 am »

Wow. I can't relate to any of this! Again, perhaps I was in the dark. Thankfully, I never attended a couple's conference so missed out on all that delightful teaching.

One of my early red flags was an end of summer service where MD reminded everyone that the week after Labor Day they would be going back into "seeker" mode so we weren't supposed to bring Bibles (seekers were intimidated by them), put our hands up in the air (seeker intimidation again) and that he was going to bring out "the girls" for the worship time. Some Proverb about wisdom calling out her maidens. The way it came out was that the pretty girls were going to make an appearance to attract the unsaved guys. That was a Friday service, about a month after we started attending. We were so appalled that we went back on Sunday to see what he said. He left out the part about the maidens. We assumed someone had talked with him about the inappropriateness of that.

There was another instance shortly before we left where a female worship leader set a very bad example for young women in how she dressed (both in terms of lacking modesty and expense...no need for $1000 purses in my book). It went on for months unaddressed.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
wastedyearsthere
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



« Reply #91 on: January 20, 2010, 09:24:25 am »

Sounds like MD set a far different example than the elders from Ames!!  Strange -- but then again -- ANYTHING (even if it is dishonest) for the sake of the Gospel.
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #92 on: January 20, 2010, 10:45:46 am »

In the early to mid 80's the name of the game was:
-  full quivers, so no one should use birth control (to use birth control demonstrates a lack of faith in God, selfishness and a rejection of God's blessings)
-  home births are more spiritual, less costly, and God will take care of the righteous

Fear, fear of God's disapproval, fear of being seen as less spiritual by the church, and fear of the many rules they had established, drove every such decision.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 10:47:29 am by EverAStudent » Logged
Rebekah
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113



« Reply #93 on: January 20, 2010, 11:07:40 am »

Back to Linda's comment, I think they have definitely have a "double mind" about sex. Our college group had a big sermon about sex, which they used as an outreach tool. (The ads for it were something like "Does size matter?" or something kind of inuendo-ish like that.)

It's the ol' bait and switch approach. Bait them with "we're progressive; we'll talk about sex openly" but then switches to the ol' courtship talk.

And, yes, I think they try to bait people with attractive people up front. "We're cool. We're not your parents' church" kind of stuff. Maybe it has to do with being "winsome"?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #94 on: January 20, 2010, 11:29:53 am »

I know I've said all this before, but the only time I ever heard Rick Whitney talk was Spring of 1996, I believe. We had only been there a few months and had no idea who he was. Honestly didn't even know who he was when we left ten years later since we had no idea of how "national" our "local" church was!

Anywho, most of the parents were off at the couple's conference and he was there to speak to whoever was left in town, mostly high school and college students and singles...and us.  I think the message was on "grace" and what we took from it was, "Hey, kids, it's summer. During the summertime people "have fun". Just remember at the end of the summer that God's grace is there and waiting. Have a fun summer."

Again, we were appalled, but we thought, "Obviously, these guys brought in a special speaker and they didn't know much about him," so, we didn't want to "hold it against them" for their unwise choice of a fill-in pastor. I think we mentioned it to someone, but didn't make a big deal of it.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
kellie
Guest

« Reply #95 on: January 20, 2010, 11:53:42 am »

It is so funny after reading through all these posts, a few memories came to mind.

I remember using sex as an outreach tool in one of the dorms. We put up a lot of posters advertising a talk about sex, but that was just supposed to bring people in and then we were going to talk about God. I can't believe I didn't think it was wierd at the time!!!

Kellie
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #96 on: January 20, 2010, 01:25:57 pm »

I think it's heartbreakingly sad when people take "the church" and tart her up with sexual innuendos, seeker sensitive nonsense (like hiding how you really worship), and crass things.  Pat Robertson and Jim Baker aside, people know that church is different.  Most nonchurched people think of church as a place that is holy, that deserves respect, a place that encourages us to aim high and know and worship God!  Why anyone would want to trash that view is beyond me.  It does no one any good to put on a mask of hipness or sexual freedom, and then pull off the mask and be legalistic.  

What I like about my current church is how it acknowledges our sexuality, our humanness, and our beauty (we are God's creations, right?), but we are to come to church to not only worship God, but to be lifted to something higher and beautiful.  Dosteyevsky wrote, "Beauty will save the world."  He meant Christ's incomparable beauty, love, forgiveness, mercy is contrasted with darkness.  That beauty is the draw!  Why mar that by dumbing down church to make it more like MTV or American Idol?  We've got plenty of other days in the week for that kind of entertainment.  Sunday should be a taste of heaven.  Open, welcome, holy, and good.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 01:35:01 pm by AgathaL'Orange » Logged

Glad to be free.
BTDT
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



« Reply #97 on: January 20, 2010, 02:28:45 pm »

Quote
G_Prince: Awesome! I have a cold coming on.
Immortal_Raven: I remember a Mark Darling message at a retreat I went to.  He said 90% of women will not experience a true orgasm.  I want to know if that's within the movement or worldwide?

Stop making me laugh out loud in public places!  The subject matter makes it hard to explain.  Grin
Logged
BTDT
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



« Reply #98 on: January 20, 2010, 02:31:34 pm »

full quivers
Man, did I hate that analogy. Made it sound like kids were just something else to be "used". I seem to remember a leader naming a daughter "Aimee" as a reference to the whole quiver thing.  Sheesh.
Logged
calgal
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #99 on: January 21, 2010, 07:19:14 pm »

I loved what Agatha wrote:

Dosteyevsky wrote, "Beauty will save the world."  He meant Christ's incomparable beauty, love, forgiveness, mercy is contrasted with darkness.  That beauty is the draw! 

I remember before I got married, my husband-to-be (and I beemed proudly - can you believe it???) called me a "Baby making machine."  Wowsa.  We talked how we would cheaply feed, cloth and house this brood ... it was just about sheer numbers.  It was the Walmart factor.

So what I AM NOT now .... but you all know that now ....

calgal
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1