|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Stealth
Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 00:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Shes back....still in touch with them though.Were not seeing each other anymore....but that dosent matter.
Id like to thank everybody who sent me material and helped out.you guys did a good thing.Thank you.
This article is null now.My other post still stands.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from uncircumcised
Friday, October 19, 2007 - 20:41
  (Agree/Disagree?)
And on that holy gracious note giving by Pastor Josh, i hearby end this fuckin stupid discussion. All arise and please make your way to all safety exits.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from josh(PI)
Friday, October 19, 2007 - 09:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Mr Stealth
I just had the pleasure of viewing your and your said "girlfriends"profile on the web, I notice something alittle wierd it seems ur 25 and shes 18 so if u where going out for 3 years I guess you must have started seeing her when she was 15. Wierd my math skills are alittle bad sence the only schooling i had was doing the 3rd grade superwork book 5 times but if Im correct u where 22 at the time of the start of this hot love affair. Which brings me to the piont that maybe if she joins the family she might have better of chance not to getting involved with creepy older men. Or better yet if your into that stuff you might consider joining to. sence there are a new crop of 15 year olds every year.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | |  From Maybe parts of India are different...
Monday, October 22, 2007, 17:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
...but six years IS a big difference in the developed world. Anyone who goes to college is living in the developed world, no matter what country they live in.
A sixteen year old is still a child. Both her body and her brain are not yet fully developed and she needs to be under the care of her parents. A 16 year old cannot live independently and take care of herself like an adult. She needs quite a bit more experience before she can do this and survive. A 22 year old on the other hand, is expected to be living and functioning independently as an adult. It is NOT appropriate for a 16 year old child, no matter who was "fully aware", to be in a relationship with an adult. And if you were a healthy, mature adult you would not find any 16 year old a good companion or romantic partner. Something is wrong with this picture.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Phoenixkidd
Friday, October 19, 2007 - 08:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Stealth, if what you say is true, this is utterly heartbreaking!! Of course they are going to not let her finish college, they want her to be their own and they believe there is no higher calling than to wittle their lives away in service to "God" in that cult.
If you really love her you will go after her, and pursue her regardless if you hear from her or not. Remember the cult members are very reluctant to call the police being somewhat on the other side of the law. So just do the best you can.
You may have to leave her though, not the first time a perfectly good relationship has been broken up by religious dogma.
(reply to this comment)
| from uncircumcised
Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 23:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey Indian boy,
I think the most important question here that needs to be answered is, do you drink 'Dillma' tea? he he. Pass the dutchy to the left hand side! Pass the dutchy to the left hand side!
If i were you i would join the family, that way you'll never have to push another tourist again on those wagon thingo's, you can fuck as many chicks as you want and have many many little indian curry munchers to countless wives and never even have to have anything to do with them. The teens of the home will be more then willing to do all the chores and you can just sit right back on your favourite easy chair and have copius amounts of loving jesus time through the word of God almighty (Other wise known as that big man with a fuckin great be beard who supposedly lives in the fucking sky).So God Bless you too mother fucker, what ever the hell that means, may he bend the rules of the universe and give you some special gifts. GOD WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU, I COMMAND YOU TO STRIKE ME DOWN WITH A BOLT OF LIGHTNING. So put that in your pipe and smoke, dillma tea drinking curry muncher. peace.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From roughneck
Saturday, October 20, 2007, 17:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Argh, I'm starting to sound like The Grammar Fascist Formerly Known as JoeH, but that last phrase of yours makes zero sense.
The only way you can say "same difference" without sounding like a ditz is if the actual difference between 2 disparate items is the same. For example there is the "same difference" between 3 and 5 as there is between 4 and 6, namely 2. Please stop saying "same difference" when you mean to say "same thing".
All that being said, you do of course know that "Indians" run the gamut from relatively fair-skinned and light-eyed to almost African in shade, right? And the differences between them don't just stop at coloration, each Indian state also has their own languages, customs and cuisine as well. To lump them all together into one stereotype is as inaccurate as saying all Aussies are Foster's-drinking Crocodile Dundees, for example.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From roughneck
Friday, October 19, 2007, 19:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
What exactly do you have against Aussies anyway? Most Australians are really quite nice.
Secondly, why do you affect being some big n' bad gangsta? Do you imagine people take you more seriously, Internet Tough Guy? News flash, I sure don't. You do, however, remind me of an acquaintance of mine who is a fuckup by profession and certainly by choice. He's in jail, as I suspect you also will be in short order.
This is not an admonishment to "act white" or anything, just saying, your online persona (at least) is a poseur of the highest order. -At least I hope you aren't really as thuggish in real life as you appear online.
Yeah yeah, I'm a shit mofucka crack queer whathaveyou. Sticks and stones, ITG.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From uncircumcised
Friday, October 19, 2007, 01:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Whatever,
doll and rice then and all the other spicy food that gives you the shits. Don't mean to sound racist, but today i don't really give a shit. I don't have any personal vendetta against any race though, we are all humans. But Mr Aboo, if their is one thing that you need help with, it is your ignorant belief in a God. I recommend you go to your local book shop and get a book titled ' The God Delusion ' by Richard Dawkins. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Friday, October 19, 2007, 06:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mr Uncircumsized, if their is one thing that you need help with, it is your ignorant belief that just because you say something, it's automatically true. Can I do that also? In that case, "Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' is not a New York Times best seller".
The God Delusion was knocked off of the New York Times Hardcover Fiction Best Seller List after 51 weeks on September 30th, but you're a fool if you think my above statement had anything to do with it. What you said is opinion (which you, as always, are entitled to), but not fact.
Stealth, just so you know, I am reading the book mentioned above. There are a number of reviews of the book, but there is one that I saw yesterday and found very interesting. At the moment, if Dawkins had any hope of convincing me that the Evolution was possible, it would have been the argument of an infinite number of universes. This review answers that argument. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
The only thing I would tell you is don't get started on it unless you have a lot of time on your hands, as Dawkins' book is 400 pages long.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Friday, October 19, 2007, 10:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Samuel I have got to get your phone number and chat sometime. If you thought that review made even the slightest sense you have a very low capability of following logic. I feel very sorry for those who read that and thought it made sense. Dawkins premise is that if you can show that there is no need for a God to explain any of our universe than it makes the likely hood of God extremely low. Because you have conjured up an incredibly complex creature with no reason to do so whatsoever (not explain the wonder around us or anything). The reviewer says even if I give Dawkins the argument that there is nothing that we observe that cannot be explained as self consistent within it's own boundaries, Dawkins is still making a huge leap to say therefore it is not likely that some additional massively complex thing that there is no evidence for is responsible for it. He says that is the same as Dawkins saying since there is no evidence that I did not get a huge raise therefore I did. It is not in the tiniest bit like that. Rather Dawkins is making an argument that on should not assume that for which there is no evidence, not the other way around. The reviewers position is actually the one he is accusing Dawkins of, that is, he is saying if I concede to Dawkins that there is no evidence for God, (or rather no irrefutable evidence that there is any need for God which is the same thing)nevertheless you need to prove that a conjured up being does not exist. Again many people have already told you this but in order to find out if your argument makes sense run through it replacing giant magical teapot or something like that for the word God, and if your argument works for the teapot it works for God. If not it doesn't.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, October 21, 2007, 12:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Steam,
The people who read that review and thought it made sense simply looked at it from a viewpoint which is different from yours, and therefore do not need your pity. I don't know what need has anything to do with the likely hood of God existing, as just because you do not need something does not mean it is not there. I do not think that God is really all that complex.
Dawkins says that God would have to be very complex to create something as irreducibly complex as the Universe, and would therefore be even more improbable than the Universe is. This is where Dawkins fails. Most theologians would respond that God dwells outside of our universe, and outside of science. See where the problem is? It's like arguing "There are no cookies because Laura's friends ate them all at their sleepover yesterday.", while ignoring the response that "But there are more cookies in the cupboard." That argument would not stop someone who wants cookies from looking for them, just like Dawkins' argument does not stop me from believing in the probability of God. Let me put it this way, Dawkins' argument is incomplete.
So Dawkins believes that one should not assume that for which their is no evidence? That is a very interesting point, and hopefully I will get to answering it in the near future.
I have already replaced several things and gods with the word "God" in that argument, and seemed to work just fine. Thanks for letting me know that my argument works for God.
Finally, I think the author of the review is onto something, as he had this to say near the end of his review.
" The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism , not between science and belief in God.
The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion."
(end quote)(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Monday, October 22, 2007, 06:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Samuel, Thank you for your reply. Let me go point by point. First I felt sorry for those who thought that the review actually followed logic, not those who believe in God. Different viewpoints are fine but if you say H2O is water and someone replies "H2O the sky is blue" you would feel sorry for them not being able to agree to follow a basic train of thought and follow through logically. Doing so is the only possible basis for a debate on "truth". Now since you do not mind exchanging the word God in your discussion with any other term, as it is a placeholder word for whatever it is you think created the universe I will quote your statements in that manner. You said "Dawkins said the all knowing teapot would have to be very complex to create something as irreducibly complex as the Universe, and would therefore be even more improbable than the Universe is. This is where Dawkins fails. Most theologians would respond that the all knowing teapot dwells outside of our universe, and outside of science. See where the problem is? It's like arguing "There are no cookies because Laura's friends ate them all at their sleepover yesterday.", while ignoring the response that "But there are more cookies in the cupboard." That argument would not stop someone who wants cookies from looking for them, just like Dawkins' argument does not stop me from believing in the probability of the all knowing teapot. Let me put it this way, Dawkins' argument is incomplete."
Several points to that paragraph one is this telling line you wrote: "That argument would not stop someone who WANTS cookies from looking for them".(Emphasis on WANTS added). The point is someone who wants "cookies/magical teapot/God will continue to look for it, even if it has not been found anywhere it has already been looked for. And by the way it is not like there haven't been thousands of years to look in "the cupboard" or anywhere else for that matter. But the promise is still "no worries the cookies are in another cupboard, but they are magical invisible cookies that do not conform to anything in existence that has ever been measured". For thousands of years this made a little sense because there were cookie crumbs all over the place, but recently new tests have been able to show these "crumbs" or clues to the cookies existence are fully compatible with actually just being cardboard and require no hidden cookies to explain. Now that the scientific (as opposed to emotional) reason for looking for the long elusive though highly sought cookie is gone, still as you noted "it will not stop someone who WANTS cookies from looking for them."
I appreciate your other insight that the argument made by Dawkins is incomplete because any instantaneously summoned magic answer to a conundrum can continue to have aspects once more summoned in order to get around any difficulty. You are right as long as this creation does not have to have any resemblance to any reality we have ever experienced, there is no way to even try to show it's non existence.
However the magical teapot you have proposed is in fact an interesting one. It is some sort of simple construct not bound in the physical realm of our universe that somehow created ours. This is not actually a great stretch for me to find plausible. If scientist were working on some advanced laser/radiation thigamagig and ripped a seem in our current universe. Creating (possibly even without their knowledge) another sort of universe by some unknown "spiritual" substance. They may not even be aware of what they have done, and quite possibly would never be able to interact with this new universe of which they may be unaware. Yet they would be the "God" of this new place. However since there is no way to test such a theory. It remains an intriguing flight of fancy and certainly not something worth creating an entire theology around drawing all sorts of codes and rules around down to who one can have sex with etc. The point being if that theory were "the truth" there would be no way to find that out, (unless one day we found a way to enter other universes/realms), and therefore not something worth exploring except as a hypothetical fantasy certainly not something worth "believing" in. On your final point the reviewer does what he has done several times throughout the review and that which he accuses Dawkins of, that is he simply states something with no logical buildup to it or support and assumes that therefore makes it so. He implies in fact that evolution is guided and naturalism says it is not. This shows once more his feeble grasp on anything he attempts to dispute. Evolution is not "guided" in the sense of an outside force with a specific end goal to be reached as anyone with a passing acquaintance with the theory would know. The term guided might be applied in a very loose sense when trying to convey that it tends to lead to creatures better and better adapted to their environments. It still would be a clumsy word to use and as you may surmise there is all sorts of directions evolution can go. Creatures could develop a limb and then as environments change lose it, and then as they change again, get it back, in a totally random fashion in regards to genetic mutations and whether in different circumstances they conferred survival benefits or not. There is no conflict unless because in your everyday interactions you only see "guided" complexity you are unable to make the mental leap through the scientific evidence to the unguided complexity of evolution.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exfamily
Sunday, October 21, 2007, 14:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Most theologians would respond that God dwells outside of our universe, and outside of science."
And by what authority do they say that? How can they know where God dwells, or that he dwells outside of the universe, or that he dwells outside of science? If science cannot know if, how is it that men can all the same declare it to be so? By what means do they know it? How is it that the natural mind can make qualified statements about the supposed supernatural, if the supernatural lies beyond the grasp of the natural world?
I once read that Theology is the only field in which you can be an expert in nothing - seeing that theology deals with things that don't exist.
"The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science."
I don't see how the reviewer came up with the notion that evolution is in conflict with naturalism. Anyone care to explain?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from josh(PI)
Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 15:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
yeah man, your story has as many holes as the hand me down shirts we use to wear.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from 2ndlife
Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 15:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
why did u change your story? You took out the part about her being a live out member and your rant about family Devil worship, which i kind of liked. Your story seems to change quit abit from day to day. this is starting to sound like the indain soap operas I was forced to watch while waiting for some shop keeper to buy something.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From 2ndlife
Sunday, October 21, 2007, 08:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
alright fair enough, maybe be alittle more clear when u post something next time. Its basicly like this if she joins as you said she will a couple of things will happen she be put on babes static for 6 mounth where there is no sex at all. after that everythings fair game she'll be able to have sex with who ever she wants ,but i wouldn't really worry about any1 forcing her, unless india is way diffrent from the rest of the world most of that stuff stop back in the mid 90s. they can ask but she dosn't have to put out and u can tell her that. But then again there was always diffrent standard for us secound gen. and new nationals, if some dirty adult would ask us for sex we would tell them to go fuck themselves, but u do see alot of young nationals married to men who are old enough to be there fathers or grandfathers this is mainly for a green card or a european passport to get to the west. So its like this if you really want to be with her you might want to join the family you ll have to lip serves to the doctrens for about a year but after that you sould be able to find a cool home somewhere or start your own as long as you tithe and send in a good made up prophecy every so often they leave u alone life can be pritty good in the family if to find the right ppl to live with, do that for a couple of years by that time she should have figured out that the family Doctrines suck and be happy to leave. you ll have the girl and a 3 year vacation on the family.just be sure if u join not to give them any of ur money keep your bank accounts secert and find something good to day dream about during wordtime.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from josh(PI)
Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 14:46
 (Agree/Disagree?)
yeah i have to agree with the other comments here. you remind me of this one national, that my ex was giving bible studies to. i had to explain firmly yet (lovingly) that, while family girls are affectionate to you, its nothing special to get excited about and it dose not mean your dating.from what i get from your story it sound like, she was FM and probaly met you while wittnessing or some other from of outreach, and starting seeing on a regular basis to ether give bible studies or to try and sell you some of our crap.and im guessing you bought it on a regular basis or she wouldnt have kept coming back. and she is now trying to give you the slip.
(reply to this comment)
| from uncircumcised
Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 03:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey Brother,
Seems to me you have a few deeper issues here that may be needing to come to light. You seem like a very lost confused dude, i have serious doubts as to whether you have a so called girl friend who is trying to reruit you. Take a deep breath, smoke some dope, masterbate, then come back and lose the disguise.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from Seb
Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 22:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know who you are, or who your girlfriend is, but you asked for an outside perspective on things.
I think if you would respect your girlfriend's decision more, then she would listen to you more. Don't be so determined to get her out of the group as you are determined to stay with her. It's not about The Family stealing your girlfriend, it's about your girlfriend and you.
You need to be more concerned about your girlfriend's well-being if you really want her back. Don't make attacks against the group, that will only make matters worse.
Be kind towards the group, she likes the group, show your respect for her by respecting the group. Even though it is "an evil brainwashing sex cult", you should re-examine things from her perspective. If you see things from where she's at, you might be able to understand what she's doing better. And in understanding her viewpoint, you can then re-examine your own viewpoint.
Seeing as I don't know all the details of this conflict between you and your girlfriend, I cannot help you as much as I would like to. But my main counsel to you is not to try and expose the group, but to try and understand her motives for joining the group. This will be the source of your reconnection with her.
It is vital that you do not force an untimely decision on her, it may only lead to more distance between you. I suggest you wait until she realizes what the group is fully (from the insiders and the outsiders), and then, when she has seen from all perspectives, let her decide for herself, whether she will stay, or whether she will leave. Or even if she stays, there are certain levels of Family membership which would allow you to continue a relationship with her.
My question for you is, which is more important, that you stay together, or that she stays out of TF?
(reply to this comment)
| From Stealth
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 23:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Very true...I got a little carried away in the beggining,You cant blame me after all the stuff i read about them...anyway i sent her a few mails with facts,The decision is completely upto her.
Why would i want to have anything to do with the family after all the stuff that theyve allowed and still continue to do?How can i follow the rules of a sadistic paedophile,egomaniac claiming to be a prophet??
My answer to your question is simply this.
Im n love with her....Even if she dosent end up with me id like her to learn the truth about TF.Ill respect her decision as long as i know its an informed one.
I would like to help anyone who would like to get outta TF,and i would like to let the people inside TF know the facts about what theyve been tought and what has been hidden from them.The decision is upto them.
Please take a look at my other post....(reply to this comment) |
| | From scorpion
Friday, October 19, 2007, 11:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
hey stealth boy, seriously if ur gf is gonna choose some cult over u the FUCK HER. u tried, she gonna be like that then let her fuck up her life. bitches come an go. true brothers or friends is what u need rit now. lemme ask u somthing, if a group of guys ar coming after u, is ur girl gonna help u? if ur in jail an some big niggers starting shit wit u is she gonna help? if u get shot is she gonna take care of business for u? no, ur brothers are. There ar so many girls out there, dont let one make u lose focus. I know i might sound harsh right now but im just telling u cause iv seen good friends get so fuked up over some ho an regret it big time in the end. dont let that happen to u its not worth it! good luck tho(reply to this comment) |
| | From seb
Thursday, October 18, 2007, 08:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've been part of the Family and I know the negative side of things... but the Family nowadays is not like it has been in the past. There were many illegal things done by the Family in times before, but they are not hidden from us now. Perhaps as young children I can understand why they were hidden from us, because that type of thing is not something you would want to expose your children to. But TF nowadays doesn't actually hide anything from the members of TF. A lot of us were told and exposed to all "the lies of the negative ex-members and anti-cult movements", and watched the Dr. Phil shows and such. I don't believe everything I see on TV, and I don't believe everything I hear from TF, they're both not telling the whole truth.
I have siblings who are still in TF, and they do their "outreach projects" and such. But some of the stuff I hear on these news and ex-member sites is just BS! It's like who are you going to believe, your brother who you've known since birth or some website with a completely distorted twist on what happened?
The current day Family actually allows for more autonomous rule by the Home units. Some homes are corrupt, and some are actually doing pretty well in their communities, helping out and things. I wouldn't say that it's SO potentially dangerous for her that she's joining TF, but a lot depends on the home that she is joining.
The Family is not what it used to be, mainly because MO isn't alive anymore. I think you should know the truth about TF before you try and tell her the truth about TF.
TF did have pedophiles in the group, they did do FFing for a while. They halted that for the most part.
Still today they believe in adultery within God's law and the whole Loving Jesus thing, which aren't so potentially dangerous, seeing as a lot is left up to personal choice. Believing the loving Jesus revelation isn't mandatory, and neither is living the Law of Love in the way of sharing sexually, or even "Going for the Gold" (Unprotected sex)... Of course there is the factor that a certain emphasis is placed on it being the "Lord's highest will" to live these principles.
What I meant in my earlier comment by the "certain levels of Family membership that would allow you to stay with her" is that she could join the Family as an MM or FM member (with less commitment to the group), and stay with you. But in order for something like that to work out, you'd have to compromise with them in the sense that you wouldn't be constantly trying to remove her from the group.
Anyways, the decision is up to you, whether you would settle for that, or whether you absolutely want her to leave and sever all connection with the group.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From roughneck
Friday, October 19, 2007, 03:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
While you might be right in saying that The Family isn't as it used to be, and you may also be right in saying that "that type of thing is not something you would want to expose your children to", the fact remains, we WERE exposed to "that type of thing" EVERY DAMN DAY as kids growing up in The Family.
In case too much Word Time dampened whatever cognitive ability you may have had at one point:
-Having sex with your children is incest and abuse. -Encouraging if not actually requiring your children to have sex with each other is abuse.
-Requiring your children to read pornographic literature is abuse
-Denying your children an education because you fear what they might learn about your way of life is abuse.
-Having your women fuck strangers for material gain is Prostitution.
-Beating your children with belts, 1x4s and boards is also abuse.
-et cetera
No amount of "spin" will change these basic facts. If you have had any of these events happen to you, you'd be entitled to whatever anger you feel. And you'd be doubly entitled to feelings of rage when ignorant twits like yourself call the recounting of such events "BS".(reply to this comment) |
| | From seb
Sunday, October 21, 2007, 20:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Everyone knows that those things happened in the Family, roughneck. I'm not denying that. You're right. But what my brother did had nothing to do with that, and was a completely separate issue. Nothing to do with child abuse or prostitution or anything like that, I know what he did, and he didn't do anything wrong. Some guy just put a weird twist on what happened.
I'm just saying not to believe everything that comes out of an ex-member's mouth, or everything that comes out of the media. Some of the stuff makes sense, but other stuff is outright nonsense, and you will come to realize at some point or other that from either side you don't get the whole truth.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Monday, October 22, 2007, 01:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Alright, let's just say that I have to give an ex-member's story (however outlandish it may sound) much more credence than the half-baked denials of a present member desperately trying to justify their current way of life. Why? The current member has something to gain or lose depending on what your impression of them is. This isn't usually the case with exers.
Now, I don't know who your brother is, or what he's said, not said, or did, so I really can't comment on specifics. But that's not really here or there. All I'm saying is that there is a helluva lot more 100%-beef bullshit on myconclusion than movingon.
I have to ask, though, who in their right mind would continue to trust and financially support leadership who have so obviously and consistently led their followers down the wrong path time and time again? Seems to me like these people fall into 2 broad categories, A) the profoundly stupid, and B) The willfully blind. Which is your brother?
Having said that, it's a good idea not to believe absolutely everything you read or hear in the mainstream media. They don't exist to tell the truth, for the most part they exist only to sell advertising, which is at cross-purposes with accuracy a lot of the time.
I'd be curious if you could point out some specifics of things that actual-factual exers have said that is "outright nonsense", as I really can't think of much that fits that bill, off the top of my head, anyway. Thanks. :)(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Monday, October 22, 2007, 01:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Also, I forgot to add that current members are really quite loathe to call a spade a spade and refer to past events in the same manner that us on the outside do. They deny that any "abuse" happened at all, and that FFing wasn't prostitution, etc. Frankly, what the Family's leadership refuse to recognise is that their supposed "motivation" of "love" means nothing in light of the actual atrocities that they perpetrated on their flock. Frankly, forgiveness is for the repentant only. I don't have it in me to forgive those who continue on the way they always have, with just a token "we're sorry you misunderstood, sheep" bone thrown our way.(reply to this comment) |
| | from board
Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 19:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
this guys sounds alot like the guys we would meet while out selling tapes and vidoes, who would get obsessed with a girl or auntie in the home and after a few bible classes would not leave them alone but keeped trying to call the home or following them while they where out. Sometimes these girls would try to scare these guys off by telling them some of our more wierd dogma. dont know but iv seen this type of thing happen before
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From josh(PI)
Thursday, October 18, 2007, 15:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
dude first off, the family never lied to ppl in the family, the twisted the fuck out of stuff but never out right lied to us, its just, what you think their saying might not be what they are.(ever heard of decievers yet true haha) yeah anyway they called what im talking about duble speak we were all tuaght it from an early age,so when ppl would ask us questions about the family we could lie with out lying.it comes in handy now that i've left.second of all any one who was in or rejoining the family knows all of the dirty little secrets. so you wont be telling her anything she dosnt know already. and third of all you're getting merried (did she know about that)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Heraclitus
Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 18:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Couldn't read it, it was too long and stupid. I make a point of limiting the stupidity I imbibe before breakfast. Stopped at the part about "the bible's sexual sins."
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from cassy
Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 11:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can I just say that this poster is genuine and they are still recruiting, I know of a case here in the UK as well that is very similar. I think if people come on this site asking for advice it's probably best to give the benefit of the doubt, no? Stealth, you can also email me on my profile if you like. I would suggest showing her some internal documents that she probably hasn't seen yet that can be supplied to you, such as the 'intermarraige' of the generations. Would she be willing to have sex with men in their late 50's, or masturbate to Jesus? I would also suggest perhaps giving her the book 'Jesus Freaks' by Don Lattin available on Amazon.com that is recent. Other than that, I would keep the lines of communication open, encouraging her to talk about things and ask difficult questions, asking the right questions is also important (but not in a confrontational way and that would likely have her react by shutting down).
(reply to this comment)
| from SeanSwede
Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 09:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can help.
GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
....QUCK WHILE YOU CAN!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Nick
Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 07:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
This article sounds very fishy!
For a start your using some very "family" lingo that someone who has only met them a few times would not know. Like the word systemite. Also, they do not tell people about the loving jezuz doctrines after hardly knowing them for 3 months.
Also, the cult does not actively recruit members the way you claim to have been. infact, it's actually very hard to join them and you have know them and visit them for years before they ask you. They don't try to recruit people at some retreat after only having met you a few times through your GF over the space of three months.
I smell a rat!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Stealth
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, 09:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok as i said before.....my girlfriends family was in the family(fm),they are now am and still tithe to them...their relationship with them spans 30 years+,there are 100s of loving jesus doctrine and mo letter links on a lot of sites,go to wikipedia and type tfi or children of god or the family in wikipedia...... I met the family through them,you get it?I was on fire for the lord even before i met them....they probably wanted to capitalise on that,and who says they visit you for years??....thats bull!In my country they start inviting you as soon as you start doing the foundation stones course cuz they have not been publicised here for what they are as yet.(reply to this comment) |
| | from afflick
Monday, October 15, 2007 - 21:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm going to go on the assumption this is not James Massa, although it sounds suspiciously like him. Also, what? You're dating a girl currently in The Family? How can that be allowed? This camp you describe sounds like the XD "Xtreme Disciples" camp that was recently held. ("Xtreme, man!")
As for the rest of your article, I am not sure about the whole "Jesus speaks to me" thing but I do agree that logical thought when it comes to The Family's teachings is unwelcome and discouraged.
I hope you love your girlfriend and are patient with her. She probably grew up in The Family and knows nothing else. She could use someone to support and understand her. But getting prophecies that you should join TF? Yeah, run. I got "prophecies" from TF, too, when I decided to leave. They were all about how my life would be a meaningless shell and I would never find true love. Flash forward eight years, I am challenged and motivated and have true love. What you have to understand is that those prophecies come out of nothing, out of thin air, out of what Family members have read in Family publications, heard others "prophecy" and they aren't real. If The Family is so close to God that he gets as specific as telling you to join, then why doesn't he impart some of that wisdom to our world leaders? Huh? Why doesn't he???
(reply to this comment)
| From Stealth
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, 01:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am not james masa,I live In (will let you know country and city and phone number if you want soon as i get her out cuz i dont know whos reading this.)
She isnt currently in the family her parents tithe to them,shes an AM(outside member,who leads a normal life but takes spiritual guidance and meets up with them sometimes) but shes joining very soon,if not already.weve been dating for 3 years.
I said I speak to Jesus not vice versa,anything i get is straight from the bible.not guided by bergs publications.
I think if she had grown up in there it would be different.shes being lured in.
Please read my full 'rant' and answer again :) thanks!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 09:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes they do actively recruit in Asia much more than in the West, as they are less known for who they are there. If your gf grew up with TFI literature, then nothing you could "show" her of their internal doctrines would seem particularly strange to her, as she's probably already been desensitized. What you could perhaps show her are the similarities between what TFI is espousing and other religious cults believe, as the group suffers the same elitist delusions every other cult does. The minute you see the identical threads running through all groups, it's easier to understand how unoriginal they are. You could also show her how she can "serve Jesus" or "help others" (I personally do not subscribe to either belief, hence the quotations, sorry.) even more outside TFI than in and dispel the myth that they are the only place where you can truly help others.
Feel free to email me through my profile.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]