--Physical contact between male and female students is forbidden there. A male student and his girlfriend were both expelled from PCC because he patted her butt in public.
--Staircases and elevators are segregated by gender; women may not use men's staircases and vice versa.
--Students are not allowed to listen to any music except classical and gospel. They are permitted to watch the 6:00 news on college-owned TVs, but no other television and no movies period. Commercials are blocked out when they watch the news.
--Books other than those in the school library must be approved by the college before students may own them.
--Students of opposite gender are not allowed to meet off-campus, even by coincidence. Once a group of guys and a group of girls met by chance in a nearby McDonald's and sat down together. All 15 students were expelled.
The list goes on and on. I can't believe that there are 5,000 young people in this country willing to cede responsibility for every detail of their lives to this school. Obviously the place is legal, and should be. But what are these kids thinking?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Are you implying that it's ok for women and men to be in the same room, alone? Or worse -- an elevator? Elevators are the devil's gift to mankind. Girl jeans are the devil's horns.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Sounds almost like 2 years of my life Except I didn't get to watch the news....those lucky sons of guns.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's an unaccredited school. It seems to be an unhealthy environment,but unless anyone is forcing them to attend and abide by the rules, I say live and let live.
I don't see the difference between that kind of school and a monastary.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote: I can't believe that there are 5,000 young people in this country willing to cede responsibility for every detail of their lives to this school. Obviously the place is legal, and should be. But what are these kids thinking?
It's more than 5000 students because Pensacola's not the only school out there like that. I know of a couple in Virginia. Although not nearly as bad as Pensacola, I always find it amusing to read about Liberty University's dress code and reprimand system - Liberty also has the distinction of being accredited. 6 reprimands and a $25 fine for going to a dance.
I also remember meeting a couple of girls from Liberty at a hockey game while I was in college. They were very upfront about saying they attend every off-campus athletic event possible, because it's pretty much the only way they could get off campus stay out past curfew without getting reprimanded.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Sounds a little like Afghanistan.
Before 9/11.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
You think terrorists are hiding there? I guess we'll have to blow it up.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
That's pitiful. And they named this place Liberty? Someone needs to hook Falwell up with a dictionary and a stomach pump.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Irami: it appears the school encourages backstabbing and suspicion, rather unlike the typical monastery.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Except for a few very strictly cloistered orders, monastaries are hospitable to visitors of either gender. Only the private areas are gender-segregated. And they allow TV watching.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Oh my. That's...very odd. Some of it's amusing, like this (emphasis mine):
quote: Even couples who are not talking or touching can be reprimanded. Sabrina Poirier, a student at Pensacola who withdrew in 1997, was disciplined for what is known on the campus as "optical intercourse" staring too intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex. This is also referred to as "making eye babies."
But the idea that they're serious about these regulations is a little frightening.
(I couldn't read the article from the link, btw; I had to look it up through my university's library site - it's on Lexis-Nexis, if anyone else has that problem.)
On a sidenote, I don't understand why some students choose to attend unaccredited colleges. Some of the kids from the Pensacola article didn't know about accreditation when they enrolled, so they kind of ended up trapped, but some of them knew and enrolled anyway. For me, the cons would outweigh the pros. I'd think that there is enough variety in the accredited schools that one would be able to find what they want among them, but I guess not.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Heyyyyy, baby. How 'bout some sweet, sweet eye sex?
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Drat. Wanted to read that.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:The apex of second-semester activities is the spring Bible Conference, which gives students a break from classes and exposes them to the strong Biblical teaching of some of America’s finest Bible teachers, preachers, and evangelists.
SPRING BREAK! Woooooooo!
-pH
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
BaoQingTian, hahahahaha lol!
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
A place like that seems to be more of a rich and strict parent's choice than the students'. Ugh.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Isn't Bob Jones like that too?
I'd hate to have folks tell me what I can read and what I can listen to... *blasts Dir en grey(
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The great thing about a place like that is that any of the students can leave at any time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Want to bet?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Only if you're not the one who defines "can leave at any time."
Although students under 18 can't leave whenever they want.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
mph: one thing the article points out is that the college is intentionally uninformative about the disadvantages of not being accredited. For instance, one of the students (who likes it there) wishes to go to dental school, but is finding that impossible. Another person who graduated with a degree in education is beginning to have regrets after discovering no public school will take her as a teacher.
And of course, merely that something is voluntary does not make it good, even for those people choosing it, or that no regulation should be able to stand in its way. However, for the most part the existence of this place seems acceptable, if detestable. It might be violating some advertising laws, though, especially if recruiters are told to say (as one student reports being told) that Harvard and similar aren't accredited.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For that matter, can leave at any time only applies to the place as a whole. If you want to leave campus but remain enrolled, that's another question (particularly if you're female). I'm not saying that doesn't mean people are free to go, but its an important distinction.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by enochville: BaoQingTian, hahahahaha lol!
Yeah, you list all the things us LDS return missionaries couldn't do at the time and (except for optical intercourse) we have 'em beat. I guess LDS missionaries are largely self-regulated though.
I didn't even want to go to BYU. I can't imagine going to Pensacola. Someone must have decreased the dosage in my Kool-Aid.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Although students under 18 can't leave whenever they want.
Good point.
Any of the adult students can leave at any time.
I'm still waiting to hear the "horror stories" about this place.
quote:If you want to leave campus but remain enrolled, that's another question (particularly if you're female).
Of course you cannot break their rules and stay a student. That's a choice each student gets to make on their own, though.
The school sounds like a bad idea, and I would recommend against it, but I'm not going to get too concerned about what school college students decide to go to.
[ May 31, 2006, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I'm still waiting to hear the "horror stories" about this place.
Well, what I consider horrific is that we have a subculture of people who are willing to voluntarily subject themselves to this sort of treatment. What's most disturbing is not that they want to live according to a "traditional" morality, but that the students abdicate responsibility for living up to their own codes by giving themselves over to PCC's system of rules.
If you want to live chastely, fine. But don't do it by locking yourself in a cage.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There was a place like this not far from where I went to high school. One of my coworkers at Burger King attended, and was strictly forbidden to touch men for any reason; if you tapped her on the shoulder to get her attention, she'd literally recoil and usually burst into tears.
She was eventually expelled for listening to the Phantom of the Opera soundtrack album while on the quad, since it wasn't on the school's list of approved music. That she was wearing headphones at the time was no protection, since monitors are authorized to cut in and demand to listen to whatever it is you're playing (and obviously chose to exercise that right in her case.)
Shortly after being expelled, she slept with her cousin, got pregnant, and moved to Kentucky.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Just today I was researching clients. One of our old prospects was a "Bible" college. I won't mention names. I knew it wasn't going to be a good prospect when the front page of thier web-site showed the 2006 Graduating class--one picture of each--all 8 of them, except for the two blanks who didn't have any pictures.
I enjoyed reading their policies and admissions guidelines. While the accepted people of any race, ethnicity, or gender, they were a bit vague on accepting people of all faiths. One paragraph talked about thier wonderful interfaith policies, saying anyone willing to follow thier moral guidelines could attend, no matter what religion they were. Three paragraphs later it said to get admitted you needed a letter from your minister. So I guess its any religion--that has a Christian Minister.
They also were very tolerant to people from out of the country, as long as they had mastered the English language.
Of course, despite the fact that strict chastity, if not virginity was expected of all students, no homosexuals would be allowed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They also were very tolerant to people from out of the country, as long as they had mastered the English language.
Most colleges test English proficiency for non-native speakers prior to admission.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I can't get the artical but here is what I found on Wikipedia.
quote: A main factor contributing to PCC's lack of accreditation is its non-compliance with Section 3.7 of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' accreditation policies, which deals with faculty competence.
quote:The college has four levels of punishment; students can be socialed, campused, shadowed, or expelled. Students who have been socialed are not permitted to speak or interact with members of the opposite sex for two weeks. Campused students are not permitted to leave the campus grounds or speak with any other student being disciplined for two weeks. Individuals who are shadowed are assigned to a floor leader (a fellow student who is paid by PCC to enforce campus discipline) and must attend that person's classes, sleep in their room, and cannot speak with anyone else for the duration. The final form of punishment is expulsion from the college.
quote: Regulations govern all aspects of student life, including clothing, hairstyles, dorm room cleanliness, types of outside employment, borrowing, magazines, and music (only classical and traditional Christian music are permitted). It is currently being petitioned for the genre of country music to be allowed at the college, on the account "Southern" and "Christian" feel. In the past, PCC has only permitted students to listen to classical music or limited, traditional Christian music. Mixed-gender interaction has the strictest rules. Stairwells and elevators are segregated by gender, members of the opposite sex are not permitted to touch in any way (even shaking hands is against the rules), mixed-gender meetings (even off-campus) are forbidden unless a PCC chaperon is present, and staring into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex, called "eye kissing", "optical intercourse", or "making eye babies", is discouraged by the administration.
quote:In a practice often referred to as "blacklisting," students who have quit the college or been expelled are often told they cannot return to the campus for various reasons. If seen on campus, security escorts them off college property. The security office keeps pictures and information on all banned from the campus. Alumni who criticize the college are removed from the college mailing list and are put on the blacklist. In March 2006, the college banned several alumni from returning to campus because they criticized the college on the popular website myspace.com. Students are eligible for expulsion if their Myspace profiles contain material the college considers inappropriate, such as unapproved music or pictures. College staff members surf the Myspace and Student Voice websites to see what current and former students are saying about the college.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Shortly after being expelled, she slept with her cousin, got pregnant, and moved to Kentucky.
See! The rules are there for a REASON!
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Here's another thing I found really disturbing:
quote: For playing the video game [Halo 2], [Timothy] Dow was campused. Later, in the cafeteria, he ran into a friend who had just been expelled. Mr. Dow had been told not to talk to his friend, who had previously been campused. But he figured it would be OK now that his friend was leaving. "I gave him a hug and said, 'See you later, man,'" he says.
Someone witnessed the exchange and turned Mr. Dow in. Students routinely turn each other in for violating rules and are rewarded by the administration for doing so. According to several former students, those who report classmates are more likely to become floor leaders.
Mr. Dow was called to the office of the dean of men, where, he says, he waited for about four hours. Then he was expelled.
A student being expelled for saying goodbye to a friend (without even breaking any of the school's male-female conduct codes) is pretty messed up.
I tried to find a no-subscription-necessary link for the article, but failed. I suppose posting the whole article wouldn't be allowed?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
...I wanna be Dean of Men....
I have a friend in Pensacola. I am going to ask him about this hilarious institution.
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
What bothers me the most is not the moral code - which the school as a private institution has the right to set up and enforce, but the serious lack of academic excellence.
That said, I do think the moral code is a little much. I must be headed to the seventh layer of hell according to these people because I not only listen the the Phantom of the Opera, but I routinely use the same elevators as men and .... prepare yourself... played Halo I AND II! Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
*GASP*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You HEATHEN!
-pH
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I'm more interested in the twistedness of rewarding spying and turning each other in for small rule breaking. If thats really the culture there, it seems the only lesson is to not trust anyone.
It must be a lonely place to live.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well, what I consider horrific is that we have a subculture of people who are willing to voluntarily subject themselves to this sort of treatment.
Meh. I did pretty much the same thing for two years. It wasn't a horror.
quote:I'm more interested in the twistedness of rewarding spying and turning each other in for small rule breaking.
This I'll agree is an ugly, ugly thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I routinely use the same elevators as men and .... prepare yourself... played Halo I AND II!
The big difference is that you haven't promised that you wouldn't. If this college is like most other colleges with codes of conduct like this, then all the students have already agreed to follow the rules.
While I there may not be anything wrong with playing Halo, there is something wrong with saying you won't and then doing it anyway.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
1.
quote: Entering entryway of opposite sex on campus or allowing the same
This quote from Liberty's website tells me something: Around midnight, I start misinterpreting things really badly.
2. As I recall from the time I've spent on college campuses, the elevators were a hot spot for sexual intercourse (no joke; after the first two unwanted eyefuls, I started taking the stairs).
3. Bob Jones University keeps sending me letters. I have four now. And very very nice ones. Offering me scholarships sans application for said scholarships, practically. I framed them and put them on my wall. I figure they're a nice covnersation piece, 'cause I'm probably as close to a demon as they've ever seen on Bob Jones campus (gay, UU, and pretty liberal--they'll love me).
All right, who wants to have my eye babies?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's also mention in the article that many of the rules, including some that can result in the more severe punishments, are not formal. That is, they're not part of what the students agreed to.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Oral Roberts University sent me a similar offer. I laughed for pretty much the same reason. I doubt they would have appreciated having a Mormon at their school any more than I would have appreciated being there.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Frankly, while I don't agree with the ultra-conservative view, I also don't think that it should be demonized either. Students who choose to attend colleges like Pensacola and Bob Jones know exactly what type of life they are selecting for themselves (regardless of what the article may say) (edit: at least in terms of lifestyle, accreditation (sp?) may be another question). I can't see the whole article and I'm not going to pay for it just to read the one article but frankly, what I don't understand is not why an ultra-conservative person would choose to go to an ultra-conservative school, but more why they would choose to attend said school and then complain about the rules that they don't like. I've heard MANY Bob Jones students complain about their school rules. If you don't agree with them don't go to that school, it's that simple. There are plenty of other good colleges and universities out there.
I did go to a school that required students to report rule breaking. Actually, I went to a school that required me to tell the rule-breaker, "You have 24 hours to turn yourself in to the Civitas Council/Honor Board," and then to notify the head of said board that I had done so. If I didn't, then I COULD be turned in for tolerance of another student's behavior. That said, I never gave anyone 24 hours and I was never turned in for tolerance.
The rule was annoying but it had it's usefulness. I could leave my purse in the lobby of any building and walk away for 10 or 15 minutes and know that it would be exactly as I left it when I got back. Incidents of cheating were much lower than at other schools and many professors at the school have said that if they ever choose to leave, they wouldn't want to teach at a college that didn't have an honor code that was enforced by all the students. Most of our exams were unproctored unless there was lab work involved, I could schedule my exams to take place during certain slots during exam weeks and I could take the exam in any room in the building where it was handed out.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:what I don't understand is not why an ultra-conservative person would choose to go to an ultra-conservative school, but more why they would choose to attend said school and then complain about the rules that they don't like. I've heard MANY Bob Jones students complain about their school rules. If you don't agree with them don't go to that school, it's that simple.
You don't think some of these students might be under pressure from their parents to attend these colleges, and not want to go themselves?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Perhaps, but the reality is, they can still choose not to go. Now, for high school programs, that's another story, but ultimately, no matter what pressure (social, familial, monetary etc.) choice of a college or university is up to the student not the parent when it comes right down to it. And yes I do realize that the above pressure can be enormous and difficult to deal with.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It's also possible that they didn't realize how unhappy they'd be with those rules once they got there.
I didn't think it would be a big deal not to be able to have male overnight guests while living on-campus.
It was. It was also a big deal that I couldn't have a car freshman year.
-pH
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
The new dorms at URI have elevators, and they had to quickly install security cameras to try to deter the, uh, meetings that happened in them Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Is the point that some students can't be trusted to behave in ways that are not destructive to themselves or others so rules are needed?
Are the rules there to make the learning environment safe for everyone? One wonders what the incidence of rape is on this campus compared to others of similar size.
Are the rules derived from religious motivations (Scripture, tradition, other sources?)
Are the rules part of the education? Maybe it's something that the school actually prides itself on and promotes?
This kind of place doesn't sound like something I'd want, but I can certainly see where there are people who might decide for themselves that it's a great fit, or whose parents decide that their son or daughter will be better off there, for a variety of reasons.
Sure, this place isn't for everyone, but neither are the US military academies, or places where there are mandatory community service requirements for graduation, or places where the sports program controls the academic life of the school.
Maybe this school hasn't even sought accreditation. They might view their mission complately differently.
Of course, some students will find they wasted their money (or their parents money) in going there when they can't get a job or pursue a career readily in their desired field.
But I daresay there's enough of THAT going on in mainstream academia that we probably ought to just let it pass.
And Belle, I'll be a couple of levels below you. Send cookies!
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I had a friend who briefly dated a girl who was attending this school at the time. I remember being horrified of all the rules then and I still don't get it now. The only way they could go on dates was for her mother to go by the school and sign her out. How are you ever supposed to find a spouse? Do your parents arrange it.
If you believe in certain lifestyle then you should practice it, but is it really your belief if someone else is enforcing it for you? I thought college was a time for young adults to start making their own decisions.
This same friend went to a small Christian high school that has some similar rules, although not as strict. In his class of 30 they had three girls get pregnant. That was the same number we had in my class of 300 (well that I knew about). No matter how hard you try to stop it from happening, if people want to do something they will find a way to do it. Let’s not teach them how to think or live just give them rules and blindly assume they will follow them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Isn't this a right of association issue? If adults want to get together and make up rules for themselves, then they can do that.
For example, if a student goes to VMI, they can't get married while an undergrad and can't have a car until their senior year. Forget about dating a fellow student. I wouldn't want to do it, but I know people who go and they love it. Since there is a variety of people out there, I think it's nice that not everyone is expected to fit into the same kind of school.
I still haven't heard any horror stories. I think the rules are way over the top and I'd slit my wrists before I attended there, but that's why I didn't attend a school like that. If students choose to attend there and agree to the rules, then the school has the right to enforce them.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ignorance and sex are a dangerous mix, that's for sure.
I think the important thing is that the individual person should be the one deciding if a place like this is a good fit or not.
I suppose if a kid was sent there against his/her will, it'd be pretty easy to leave though. A little ocular baby making and you're on the next bus home.
Strange kind of prison where the punishment for disobeying the rules is freedom.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Strange kind of prison where the punishment for disobeying the rules is freedom.
Exactly. It's not meant to be a prison. I think some people find freedom in concrete expectations.
Considering all the rules against romance, clearly the focus is supposed to be on other things. It is perfectly fine if people wish to focus on things other than the opposite sex during their education.
This isn't the way I would choose to go to school, but I'm uncomfortable with expressing horror at someone choosing an ascetic lifestyle.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The (strong) impression I get from the article is that Bob Jones and the other very conservative Christian colleges consider Pensacola a bit of a black sheep. Its not that they disagree with many of the overall rules or the theological positions, but several quotations in the article as much as say they think the university creates an un-Christian, distrusting, back-stabbing atmosphere. This isn't even bringing up the deceptions regarding accreditation that have caused many of their students grief.
There's a difference between ascetism and witch hunts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Like I said, I wouldn't go there. However, if I did choose to go there, I am sure it would not be in order to gain the approval of Bob Jones University. If that was the goal, then I'd go to Bob Jones.
Oddly enough, you calling it names doesn't change my opinion of whether or not I think the school is presenting what they believe is an ascetic lifestyle.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
fugu, True.
It should also be mentioned that the other conservative Christian colleges are in competition with this one and might have a few un-Christian attitudes of their own when it comes to market share.
I can also see how accreditation would be a sore point with the other schools since they paid money and went through the hoops of getting some form of it -- although I also know that their accreditations are often looked down upon if they didn't go with mainstream academic ones, but went the Christian accreditation route.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course the school is presenting what they think of as an ascetic lifestyle. That there's a wealth of evidence (the site has several other articles on the college worth reading, btw) they intentionally mislead students about their lack of accreditation and the effects thereof is still extraordinarily problematic. That their notion of ascetism relies on students turning each other in for possibly looking at each other too long (and there's apparently no appeal, even if there's only one supposed witness) is also extraordinarily problematic. Students getting preferential treatment by the number of classmates they turn in is also extraordinarily problematic.
I don't think they should be forced out of business because it is a culture of consent, but being a culture of consent does not stop it from being unhealthy. I merely don't intend to go to schools like Bob Jones with overall considerable similarities. Pensacola makes me sad for the students who go there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sure they feel sorry for you as well, so I guess it's a wash.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
katharina, I like the way you put it. Everybody is "right" from their own point of view. The problem arises when people cannot "put themselves in the shoes of others" and don’t even try to accept that there are other possible premises than their own.
We already know that everybody can’t actually be right at the same time, while sustaining contradictory views.
So the “solution” is not imposing ONE point of view to all, but accepting that all have their own right and responsibility for their own choices.
I might see “the horror stories from PCC”, and the next person might see them as the fulfilment of an ideal society. That is not a valid point for dispute. The dispute could arise if someone who made an informed choice to go to PCC, then “complained” about (some of) the rules. That is not “right” by any “rule”. As more than once was said here, those who don’t like it, should act on their right to go away form it (before vilifying what they don't agree to).
A.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
Schools like this are just one example of how we Christians tend to isolate ourselves form society. The modern church has gotten really good at creating a nice little subculture to protect itself. But Christ never did that, He actually went out of his way to engage society.
I also don’t think they work. What message are they really sending at this school? By creating all of these rules to follow it is a way to create for people to feel like they are some how better than others, or gives them the appearance of being good. You can obey all of the rules and still be in total rebellion in your heart. The heart is what Christ was really concerned with, not the appearance of righteousness. Don’t get me wrong I am sure there are some students who are doing this for good reasons, maybe they see it as the only way to prevent themselves from leading a sinful lifestyle and keep their hearts in the right place.
I have a lot of problems with what this school is teaching, reminds me of the Pharisees in Christ time, but I have no problem with its existence. If a bunch of adults want to put themselves through it, it's their right as an Americans to do it. There are a lot of private organizations that I don’t understand or have any desire to join.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Considering all the rules against romance, clearly the focus is supposed to be on other things.
In my experience, when there are a lot of rules against something, usually that's EXACTLY where the focus is.
If something's unimportant to you, you don't need to ban it.
This is actually one of my problems with a lot of moral strictures; they tend to create obsessions with behaviors that would normally never be problematic. Consider the idea of "eye sex;" would that even exist as a problem worthy of discipline if they weren't doing everything they can to eliminate all romantic expression?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:And Belle, I'll be a couple of levels below you. Send cookies!
I hope you like them with the bottoms burned.
quote:This is actually one of my problems with a lot of moral strictures; they tend to create obsessions with behaviors that would normally never be problematic. Consider the idea of "eye sex;" would that even exist as a problem worthy of discipline if they weren't doing everything they can to eliminate all romantic expression?
Excellent point.
quote:Schools like this are just one example of how we Christians tend to isolate ourselves form society. The modern church has gotten really good at creating a nice little subculture to protect itself. But Christ never did that, He actually went out of his way to engage society.
'Nother excellent point. I've never been a fan of this isolationist tendency either. It's one of the reasons I am against homeschooling strictly for religious reasons. There are some good reasons to homeschool but having the sole one be "I don't want my precious child to be influenced by the evil public schools" is not one I agree with. Because your precious child is going to have to live in the world someday, and not only that, if your child is Christian then your're denying them an opportunity to be a witness in the school. We're supposed to be cities on the hill - lights in the world - we can't do that if we're all shut up in our own little insulated closets hiding from the world.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: 'Nother excellent point. I've never been a fan of this isolationist tendency either. It's one of the reasons I am against homeschooling strictly for religious reasons. There are some good reasons to homeschool but having the sole one be "I don't want my precious child to be influenced by the evil public schools" is not one I agree with. Because your precious child is going to have to live in the world someday, and not only that, if your child is Christian then your're denying them an opportunity to be a witness in the school. We're supposed to be cities on the hill - lights in the world - we can't do that if we're all shut up in our own little insulated closets hiding from the world.
Amen
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wise words, Belle.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I like a lot of what Kat has said in this thread.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Meh. I did pretty much the same thing for two years. It wasn't a horror.
I can't hold back my curiosity about this any longer, mph. In what way were your experiences analogous to PCC students'? Were you allowed to read your own books and watch movies and TV? How would you have been punished if you didn't live up to the rules?
Feel free not to answer if it's too personal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
For two years, I was a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
We could not read our own books -- only the scriptures and a few other church books. We could not watch movies. We could not watch TV. The only music we could listen to was hymns. We had one day a week "off" where we were supposed to take care of the shopping, laundry, etc.. We could write letters to family and friends. We were never allowed to leave the presence of our missionary companion. Romantic interactions with anybody was prohibited (well, except possibly through letters). Except on our day off, we always wore a white shirt and tie.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You forgot mandatory bed times and rise times.
And I don't know about you, but shower time was definately conducted out of the presence of my companion Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There are huge differences, as far as I can tell, between the PURPOSE of PCC and the PURPOSE of a mission.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You forgot mandatory bed times and rise times.
That I did.
quote:And I don't know about you, but shower time was definately conducted out of the presence of my companion
Here's a nit. I hope you enjoy it. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
But were you punished if you didn't live up to these standards?
I guess that was the most important of my questions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But were you punished if you didn't live up to these standards?
I could definitely be sent home from my mission if I didn't obey the mission rules.
It didn't happen often, and it wasn't the first reaction, but it does happen.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not really, I don't think. I mean, too flagrant a violation (acquiring a girlfriend, never working) might get someone sent home. If someone was blowing off the work that badly, though, I would tend to think that they want to go home.
For things not warranting sending someone home, you'd get called to repentance, but that's not the same as punishment. The other missionaries will mostly likely think you're a crappy missionary, so I suppose that could be considered a punishment, although it wasn't formal.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
See, like I said before, I have no problem with people exercising their wills to hold themselves to high standards, or what they see as high standards.
What I think is perverse is waiving one's responsibility by basically paying someone else (like PCC) to watch over you day and night. Again, this shouldn't be illegal. But I think it's a mark of weak character.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Heyyyyy, baby. How 'bout some sweet, sweet eye sex?
-pH
I happened to be reading this post when I answered my work phone. I have a long introductory spiel that I have to give when I answer my phone, and I have it on a sticky note on my monitor to help me remember. I very nearly read pH's post instead. All I got out was the "Heyyyy" before I caught myself, but that could have been a pretty funny "how I lost my job" story.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Or a "how I met my wife" story, depending...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There are huge differences, as far as I can tell, between the PURPOSE of PCC and the PURPOSE of a mission.
I'm not sure I agree.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:What I think is perverse is waiving one's responsibility by basically paying someone else (like PCC) to watch over you day and night. Again, this shouldn't be illegal. But I think it's a mark of weak character.
So...all we need to do is agree that there ARE some weak characters out there, and then we could all agree that there's a place in the world for institutions such as this.
I'm not say, btw, that this is really the situation with students at this particular school. But there are people with compulsions that they find hard to break and damaging to their lives. It is (finally) gaining acceptance in this society to treat these problems with drugs and therapy.
Are we going to deny people other possible ways of dealing with such problems?
Seriously, if a person sees themself as so potentially self-destructive and out of control, isn't it in fact better that they recognize that and try to do something about it?
Again, I'm not saying there's even one person like that in this school. But if there is one person who went there out of feelings of self-dread over actions they might take, I personally am glad that PCC is there for them.
That's not to say I think what they are doing there is going to be particularly effective for just anyone with compulsions (specifically sexual compulsions) that they are fretting about. But sometimes people do have to fail a few times before they find somethign that will help them. I'd rather someone "fail" in a place like that, then in a place where they're going to go off, have sex with their cousin, get pregnant and move to Kentucky.
I'm just sayin'.
And for some people the only way to arrive at a "healthy" attitude about sex is to live the opposite way and reject it...
Hey, I can think of dozens of reasons why a place like this might be just the ticket for some people I've known.
Again, I'd probably become a raging psychopath after a week there, but then, it wasn't built for me, was it?
Really, this earns a big "meh" from me.
I'll just add, if a child of mine wanted to attend this place of their own free will, I'd feel like a total failure as a parent.
I don't see much about it that is "Christlike" to be honest. But then, it certainly appears that is only a secondary consideration for the people who are running this place. Discipline, and especially sexual "control" appear to be at the head of the agenda. In front of Christ and in front of academics.
I'd love to see a psych workup on the founders of this place, and the current heads of it (if different people). Let's just say I have my suspicions about minds who can think up things like this code of behavior in the first place.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There are huge differences, as far as I can tell, between the PURPOSE of PCC and the PURPOSE of a mission.
I'm not sure I agree.
I agree with Tom not being sure of his agreement.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
quote: I'd love to see a psych workup on the founders of this place, and the current heads of it (if different people). Let's just say I have my suspicions about minds who can think up things like this code of behavior in the first place.
Heck, I'd like to meet someone from there. Can they honestly function in normal society? Where do they live/work after that experience? Would I traumatize them with my clothes, music, friendliness?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: For two years, I was a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
We could not read our own books -- only the scriptures and a few other church books. We could not watch movies. We could not watch TV. The only music we could listen to was hymns. We had one day a week "off" where we were supposed to take care of the shopping, laundry, etc.. We could write letters to family and friends. We were never allowed to leave the presence of our missionary companion. Romantic interactions with anybody was prohibited (well, except possibly through letters). Except on our day off, we always wore a white shirt and tie.
You ought to note that there are slight changes and stipulations to some of those rules. These changes are entirely up to the Area Presidence and the Mission President.
On My Mission: We could watch select movies that were deemed OK. I.E. Harry Potter, Star Wars, Disney Movies, etc. We could listen to classical music, and orchestrated music. We could listen to Broadway Musicals, and Church Music. This was later ammended because some stupid Missionary decided that rock music was ok.
You also forgot situations where you could leave your companion for interviews or if you had a suitable male member of the church accompanying you
I personally got to go home twice on my mission for visa reasons and was without a companion once I passed the first security checkpoint until I reached my parents at the arrival hall. The lack of companion after having one so constantly was nothing short of strange.
I guess one might compare missionaries to the kids in these schools, all I can say is my brother called me just the other day to tell me he hated his private American school in Japan because he was walking behind a cleaning lady who opened the door to a broom closet and there were 2 kids inside engaging in oral sex. Its been argued that people should be safe from the appearence of religion if they go to a public school, I am incidentally more interested in not having school be a living porn experience.
Also it should be noted missionaries only have such strict rules because they are official representatives of the church, trying their best to represent Jesus. Even a casual reading of the New Testament shows that Jesus probably did not spend much time making "eye babies."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Even a casual reading of a biology textbook on reproduction would show that no one ever has.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Broadway musicals were OK? All musicals, or just some? Because there are a lot out there that I would not consider mission approriate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Even a casual reading of the New Testament shows that Jesus probably did not spend much time making "eye babies."
Since most aspects of Jesus' life aren't ever touched upon in the New Testament, I disagree with you.
quote:Even a casual reading of a biology textbook on reproduction would show that no one ever has.
Since I don't think that "eye babies" are biological in nature, I don't think I agree with you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You ought to note that there are slight changes and stipulations to some of those rules.
I shared what the rules were for me. They were obviously different for you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Any of the deep, lengthy looks religious films are frequently happy to have Jesus do would, if at a woman, qualify as making eye babies under the standard expressed in the article.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Even a casual reading of a biology textbook on reproduction would show that no one ever has.
Possibly; then again, those biology textbooks include evilution, so that shows how much they are worth.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There are huge differences, as far as I can tell, between the PURPOSE of PCC and the PURPOSE of a mission.
I'm not sure I agree.
I agree with Tom not being sure of his agreement.
There are, of course, many purposes in serving a mission. Some of them probably have areas of overlap with the purposes of PCC. However, the main purpose of a mission, it's stated goal & focus, is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's main goal is not to pursue higher education with a extra helping of morality on the side. I would have to agree with pH on this one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, but you do spend something like 6 months getting ready for that mission, don't you? Are the rules in place during that time?
These people (some of them anyway) likely think that they are preparing for a lifetime mission.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, the main purpose of a mission, it's stated goal & focus
I do not consider a "main purpose" and a "stated goal" to always be the same thing.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:However, the main purpose of a mission, it's stated goal & focus
I do not consider a "main purpose" and a "stated goal" to always be the same thing.
I don't either, but I think it applies in this case. If you think that the main goal is to produce future church leaders, strongly instill moral values, or push official church doctrine you're welcome to your opinion. I just think that these are secondary effects and purposes(although definately intended) to the stated goal and main purpose.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
here's my first ever eye baby.http://www.friendsofhope.com/content/images/Blue%20Eye%20Baby.jpg
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You know, the Bible says Mary was a virgin, but it doesn't say she and Joseph never looked longingly into each other's eyes.
Maybe Jesus was an eye baby.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yes, but you do spend something like 6 months getting ready for that mission, don't you? Are the rules in place during that time?
These people (some of them anyway) likely think that they are preparing for a lifetime mission.
Well, technically 3 weeks, unless learning a foreign language (that adds another 6 weeks or so). You live by the same handbook of rules in the training facility as you do in the field. I'm not saying that you can't look at it the way you and Tom do. It's not black and white with a right and wrong answer. I just happen to think they are more different in purpose than the same.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
This is your idea of a horror story? I was thinking of fraternity razings, climbing rape rates, crooked Campus security, or murder in the name of Jesus Christ... Instead I find an extremely conservative college that <Gasp> Expells students for disobeying rules set forth by said college before the students ever actually get accepted.
Wow are you uptight!
I remember going to a co-ed camp where it was unaccpetable to even ask a girl to talk with you if you were a guy... You had to run into each other coincidentally. It was a pain, and for that reason alone, I wouldn't go to PCC. I don't enjoy the Pensecola worship music or teaching ministry either, so I don't buy their tapes.
What's the horror in wanted the students to refrain from patting each others butts?
What's the horror in wanted the students to devote all of their time to their study in this college, by refraining to watch TV?
It's a christian college. I believe that it is counter-productive to keep the students out of contact (They don't let you look at each other because if you 'look at a woman in lust' you might as well have done it, according to Jesus. That's why you can't make 'eye babies'. They want to keep you out of temptation), because as soon as the students are in the real world, they will be in contact with each other, and others that are quite in to sex and drugs and that Rockin' Phantom of the Opera CD. So what good are you doing by postponing the inevitable? They will be tempted at some point.
Anyway, I have yet to see any horror stories. If somebody bursts out crying because they are afraid they'll get expelled, they need to move on and leave the college. God! (Uh oh, I used the Lord's name in vain.)
If students are under pressure from their parents, they also need to grow up and get over it. I come from a Christian family, and have always been taught to Honor my mother and father, but good grief! Okay, so you get kicked out of the house for picking a differant college... If your under the age of 18, it's illegal, and you're probably going to be living on campus anyway. Besides, how are over-bearing parents the college's fault?
Really people, this is hardly horror.
Horror would be the the telekinetic girl who went to Pensecola and killed everybody after they poured blood on her at the prom... Oh wait... Horrors, there is no prom! Alas, she just killed everybody for no reason. All eight of the graduating students were killed.
And dating. Like your going to 'miss it'. Your going to miss the person destined for you (By God, since this is a Christian College, after all) because you couldn't date without your parents approval.
And backstabbing! Disturbing in a chirstian college, but can anybody say that you had an ideal social setting in college, and that there was never the jerk who looked for opportunities to get even with you for some kind of way you wrongged her/him? The only difference in this college, is that they've labled this petty behavior under 'Keeping one another accountable' which is extremely hypocritical... Hypocritical, but certainly not horrific. Legalistic and religious (Ou, I'm throughing Heagan words around, straight from the Word of Faith), but not horrific.
And as much as I hate the structure of a pompous, over-critical, nit-picking, judgemental and legalistic church setting, I hate even more the church that accepts all views, is perfectly altruistic, and that is politically correct all the time... where tolerence is prized above being like Christ.
There's a balence to these things, and every time we look at either extreme, we're seeing what humans have made of it. Not what God did, but what humans did.
And that is one of the problems with the school.
And Jesus never made eye babies... He said himself, if you look at a woman in lust, you might as well have done her. (Love the modern interpretation, don't you)
This is far from horrific.
And, If I may share one more pet peeve... I hate being the hard-headed conservative guy, who thinks that you need to have done something in order to have an opinion... But how many of you are Christians... Just a question. Or, not even christian, How many of you have even bothered yourselves to familiarize yourselves with the Pensecola ministry, from which this school was formed? Not that you can't have an opinion, but I dare say that you should at least have glossed over more than one article on PCC, shoudn't you?
Surely this one article is not the only basis for your opinion of the school? If everybody out here has done this, then I'm the ass. I'll bray next post just to make up for it.
Anyway, if I may switch to a theological point of view, regarding works versus faith, my biggest problem with this school.
Often, in christianity, going to church, reading chirstian books, you will hear the phrase 'Let there be less of me, so there can be more of you'... Where the 'me' is the person, and the 'you' is God.
Okay, I think this is completely backwards. This, and policies that stem from this kind of thinking will lead to nothing but frustration!
God said that we are earthen vessels... He also said we're sheep, salt, and a light on a hill, but for this paragraph, we're Earthen vessels. Cups, wine-glasses, whatever. We hold stuff.
Imagine a glass full of soy-sauce (Soy-sauce being the sin). Now, how is this glass supposed to pour itself out, so that there will be 'less and less of me'. It can't. Okay, now, there's a pitcher (This is deep, isn't it. ) and this pitcher is full of water. The pitcher is God (the benevelont being in charge of the entire planet) and God can pour all of himself into this tiny glass... As the glass overflows, the soy-sauce spills out and is dilluded in the glass... This is redemtion in my opinion.
This is not to say that we don't have a part in resisting temptation and stuff, but for the most part I give credit to God... And the blame if I suck as an Earthen vessel.
This college seems to be 'beating the flesh' into submission (Another Christian term) Which I believe is not needed, and, as I said before, counter-productive.
But (Everybody together now) It is certainly not horrific! Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Um... sorry about what seems to have been a controversial word choice.
My point was just that the place seems extremely unpleasant and I can't understand why any students would want to go there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He said himself, if you look at a woman in lust, you might as well have done her.
Hm. Out of interest, do you believe that being homosexual is a sin, or merely engaging in homosexual behavior? Can people who are born homosexual lead relatively sinless lives by refraining from engaging in homosexual sex, or are they damned the instant they find someone attractive?
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Don't apologize... Your use of the word 'horror' gave me a nice lead in, and exit, of the post. It was a hook... It tied all of what I said together. Thank you. LOL
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Well, it matters about what you think of sin. I believe that Jesus saves you from your sin, the moment you accept him... Not to get into 'once-saved, always saved' deal.
So, if homosexuality is a sin, I don't know why you would go to hell anymore than any other sexual sin.
But yes, Homosexuality is a sin, according to the bible.
As opposed to attraction, which happens all the time. It's not a sin to be attracted to someone, it's when you dwell on that attraction that it becomes 'looking'. 'Looking' and 'seeing' are two different things.
I've heard it explained that your going to notice good looking people... It's the second look though, the one where you know they're good looking and that's the entire reason you're looking again, that is a sin.
Am I making sense?
How about this... It's okay to be attracted to them, just don't jack off to the person's looks. (I'm being fescetious, of course)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:They don't let you look at each other because if you 'look at a woman in lust' you might as well have done it, according to Jesus. That's why you can't make 'eye babies'. They want to keep you out of temptation
My translation of the Bible actually refers to married people.
And honestly, the backstabbing IS a big deal. Yeah, people backstab one another in college, but it's not like we ratted each other out to the administration all the time. That's what gets me. There are always petty, backstabbing people, but they generally keep the school authorities out of it. I mean, if I'd reported my floormates every time one of them had a guy over after curfew...
-pH
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:How about this... It's okay to be attracted to them, just don't jack off to the person's looks. (I'm being fescetious, of course)
Nathan, I find myself really enjoying how the style of your posts complements the substance.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:Homosexuality is a sin, according to the bible.
Cite me evidence, please... What verses are you using?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My Bible can beat up your bible.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Oh no! Not a big debate over the sinfulness of homosexuality! Seriously though, I appreciate (and agree with) much of your post, Nathan. I think there are certainly things more horrific than very strict rules at a college. But what bothers me most is that this simulated sheltering is not going to do these young people any favors when they get out into the world. I am Christian but I believe in learning much about the world in order to discern what is and is not morally or spiritually correct. It is the "know thy enemy" idea. This school kills any hope of students making a decision to follow Christ on their own. Morality and religion are imposed on students and the they are sheltered from "evil" rather than deciding for themselves to live a life of faith despite the evils of the world.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Wow, this strikes quite a chord with me. I have just lived through the experience of having my adolescent child in a psychiatric hospital for nine days. The description of the school rules is disturbingly similar to the hospital rules. No contact with the opposite sex. No outside influences. Two 10 minute phone calls per day. No forming of relationships with other patients, even of the same gender, because it can interfere with individual treatment goals. Extreme surveillance. Very very strict rules about reading material and movies and music.
Even knowing they were necessary, I had a hard time with the conditions in this program. Any parent would, I think. And I concluded (many times) that this program was what this child needed at this moment. It was what this child needed to stay safe and return to health. So what are the parents protecting the college students from? What is the danger? Are the students a danger to themselves -- in the worldview of these families? In the worldview of these students? I am sad.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nathasn, did I read that right?
WE are uptight?
Read the description of the "school" again.
THEY are uptight to an absurd degree.
That's the whole point.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
It was mentioned in Leviticus, and in Deuteronomy for that matter. In these verses, it was equated with bestiality. (Yes, there is a reason every Christian jumps to that particular argument when asked about ammending the marriage ammendment.)
Paul also called it 'a disgusting and deplorable' sin (NLT), and equated it with 'the burning disease'. It was in one of the epistles... If you have a concordence look it up... I'm tired, and after all, you're the one going to hell if you disagree with me. (I kid, of course.)
I hate forums. Whenever you're deliberatley obtuse or fescetious nobody notices. It's annoying to have to use so many sets of parenthesis.
Anyway, I wish this didn't have to become a discussion on homosexuality... I kind of figured somebody would ask me about it... People often do when you're conservative and they're liberal, or you're liberal while your conservative... Or if your disagreeing with anything they say, regardless of political party. Homosexuality and Abortion are hot topics... It's too bad. I'm starting to feel like I'm in a Christian chat-room.
quote: Nathan, I find myself really enjoying how the style of your posts complements the substance.
Why, thank you. I wouldn't have it any other way.
And, just one more thing off-topic: Anybody's bible can beat up someone elses Bible. I find that it's an art, really... I've met many Van Goughs.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Leviticus says a lot of things.
At any rate, I'll look up the exact New Testament verses when I feel like going out to my car to get my Bible out of my backpack. Right now, I am lazy. And tired.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Whether or not you agree with Nathan's interpretation of the Bible isn't germane to the question he was answering. He was asked asked to share his beliefs on the sinfullness of homosexuality. He did so.
It's not surprising at all that not everybody agrees with him.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Nathasn, did I read that right?
WE are uptight?
Read the description of the "school" again.
THEY are uptight to an absurd degree.
I actually thought that was a pretty good point Nathan made.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whenever you're deliberatley obtuse or fescetious nobody notices.
"Deliberately" and "facetious," BTW.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
TomDavidson, are you deliberately being facetious?
A.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I don't normally say anything about typos (Davidson's law and all), but this one just had me chuckling:
quote:the soy-sauce spills out and is dilluded in the glass... This is redemtion in my opinion.
I'm giving that 1/2 points for Freudian slipperiness as a variant of "deluded" but noting that it's close enough to "diluted" to be intelligible.
At any rate, I do hope this doesn't turn into yet another discussion of homosexuality. That's not even close to being central as a topic here.
Sharpie, my hypothesis about protecting students from themselves (their base desires) was exactly along the lines of what you were wondering. If you believe that your immortal soul is in danger from certain thoughts and actions, it is not all that unreasonable to react to the threat by seeking environments and rules that supply the discipline that may be lacking.
I even imagine the theory behind the rules on sexuality at PCC to run along the lines of helping young people to gain mastery over their weak selves so that when they leave they already have the habits of control. Such learned repression doesn't happen over night. Four years in a strict community may be just enough time, they hope.
In my opinion, focusing on one teaching that might lead to the conclusion that thinking about sex is a deadly sin is a mistake. Jesus didn't spend his ministry railing against people's sexual behavior. He did talk a lot about attitudes, though.
It's sort of an obvious observation that those who work so hard to avoid sex are ruled by it just as much as those who seek it constantly. It is still obsessing about sex.
One wonders what Jesus, or Paul for that matter, would say about it.
But let's not forget that people have been successfully living under various gender separation rules (religiously motivated and otherwise) for a long, long time. Is this place considered "whacky" because it's outside the norm for Christianity or because it's at the fringe of American society? Or is it bad because the people attending this school are young and might be missing out on something?
As others have said, the biggest problem is if the administration is not being up front about the schools lack of accreditation. They are, afterall, selling a product and if that product does not meet "standards" they either should be charging a lot less for it, and letting their clients know that it doesn't do everything that they might expect.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I see this as an Old Testament/New Testament view going on here. The school seems to be more worried about living to the Old Testament standards of LAW versus most of us here who are more New Testament followers, worried about living to the standards of the Spirit. How this school can be seen as the "Spirit" of Christ confuses us. How it is seen as an attempt at the LAW of Moses, short of the dietary requirments, is obvious.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Yes, but you do spend something like 6 months getting ready for that mission, don't you? Are the rules in place during that time?
It depends, and no.
I didn't prepare much, but I should have prepared more. And the rules about no hugging members of the opposite sex DEFINITELY do not apply until you're actually a missionary.
Backstabbing is a big deal, but so are things like date rape. I wonder if the founders of the school decided to take their chances with the lesser evil in hopes of lowering the incidence of the greater?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Backstabbing is a big deal, but so are things like date rape. I wonder if the founders of the school decided to take their chances with the lesser evil in hopes of lowering the incidence of the greater?
I'm wondering whether a) the incidence of date rape is actually lowered by this and b) whether this justification could be used to require women to wear burkas.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Considering how little most students probably date at all considering dating is forbidden, I would reckon that yes, it does lower the incidence of date rape.
I don't see how b) is even a question. Of course it could, but I don't see how that matters.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
How did this thread swing in this direction? I made the comment of Jesus not making Eye Babies merely in jest. I was not trying to make any sort of moral statement on whether Jesus had a love life, whether sex before marriage is ok, or even less "Homosexuality: good/bad?."
Dag: The rules are there for you to know, you go to a training center to prepare to be a missionary 3 weeks - 3 months depending on where you are going.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, don't be disingenuous or twist my words. I wasn't suggesting burkas.
In terms of backstabbing, isn't that what omerta was created to prevent? Anyone else a little uncomfortable about expecting omerta?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wasn't suggesting burkas.
Why not? They're a lesser evil than date rape.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom, kat was supposing possible motivations for Pensacola, not saying those motivations were necessarily reasonable, and especially not saying similar justifications were always reasonable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Honestly, I can't imagine the prevention of date rape being one of Pensacola's primary concerns in this situation. I think they're afraid that people might touch each other, get "inflamed," and strip each other naked on the Quad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I have no doubt they think their measures prevent many things.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
mph, I didn't say Nate didn't have a few good points, did I? I was just saying the level of repression was a lot HIGHER at that college than in this thread.
I also wasn't the one calling these horror stories about that college.
I find their beliefs horrible, and feel they would cause more problems than they would solve, but as I don't intend to attend Pencacola ( or pay for anyone else to, ever! ) it doesn't really matter to me either.
Lots of people sleep around more than is healthy too, but I don't have the right to stop them from doing it....nor would I want the power to be able to stop them even if was offered to me.
Either extreme is harmful, IMO.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph, I didn't say Nate didn't have a few good points, did I? I was just saying the level of repression was a lot HIGHER at that college than in this thread. [Big Grin]
Actually, it did look like you were saying that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wasn't my intent.
He WAS a little over the top though, and I found it highly ironic that he was claiming people HERE were uptight, all things considered.
That damn irony...hard to detect online, isn't it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, I thought that he was pointing out the irony of people were being uptight about how uptight others are.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
Yes, irony is hard on forums... I'm glad this is getting a little bit more lighthearted...
Thank you Mr. Porteiro Head. Yay, irony was found.
Yeah, my spelling leaves much left to be desired. <Grin>
Sory evrybodie, aisle tri hardur nex thyme.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
And, alot of this isn't just OT versus NT... It's the New Old testament, with all new laws, like goo-goo eyes and such.
Really, I find that, from what I know of God, God is not complicated. It's just hard getting through all the human junk.
Which I'm sure the PCC is chalk full of. But, I don't go there. <Grin>
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Except I didn't get to watch the news....those lucky sons of guns.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)