Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from TD Friday, July 23, 2004 - 20:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Giving the apperance to have changed doesn't mean that you have changed for the better, all your doing is trying to be politicly correct so to dodge any critisism that might come your way by saying " Oh but things have changed", If I commit murder today, it will still be murder 15 years from now, and I will still be held accountable for my acctions. It dosen't mater if you change the name of the cult, change the format on a GN or change the amount of alchool your alowed to consume, it does not change or justify misleading, misguiding, abusing, taking advantage, minepulating, (and so forth) in the name of God. (reply to this comment)

from cyborcosmic Monday, May 03, 2004 - 02:32 (Agree/Disagree?) A social scientist would list marks of a cult as: The Doctrine is Reality There is no room in a mind control environment for regarding the group's beliefs as mere theory, or as a way to interpret reality or to seek reality. The doctrine IS reality. ...cult doctrine always requires that a person distrust his own self. The doctrine becomes the 'master program' for all thoughts, feelings, and actions.... Reality is Black and White, Good Versus Evil Even the most complex cult doctrines ultimately reduce reality into two basic poles black versus white' good versus evil;...us verses them.... The 'huge conspiracies' working to thwart the group are, of course, proof of its tremendous importance.... Elitist Mentality Members are made to feel part of an elite corps of mankind. This feeling of being special, of participating in the most important acts in human history with a vanguard of committed believers, is strong emotional glue to keep people sacrificing and working hard. ...As a community, they feel they have been chosen (by God, history, or some other supernatural force) to lead mankind out of darkness into a new age of enlightenment... Group Will over Individual Will In all destructive cults the self must submit to the group. The 'whole purpose' must be the focus; the 'self purpose' must be subordinated....Absolute obedience to superiors is one of the most universal themes in cults. Individuality is bad. Conformity is good. ... Strict Obedience Modeling the Leader A new member is often induced to abandon his former behavior patterns and become 'dedicated' by being paired with an older cult member who serves as a model for him to imitate. ...One reason why a group of cultists may strike even a naive outsider as spooky or weird is that everyone has similar odd mannerisms, clothing styles, and modes of speech. ... Happiness through Good Performance ...The cult member learns that love is not unconditional but depends on good performance....Competitions are used to inspire and shame members into being more productive....Relationships are usually superficial within these groups because sharing deep personal feelings, especially negative ones, is highly discouraged.... Manipulation through Fear and Guilt The cult member comes to live within a narrow corridor of fear, guilt, and shame. Problems are always the fault of the member and are due to HIS weak faith, HIS lack of understanding, ... He perpetually feels guilty for not meeting standards.... No Way Out In a destructive cult, there is never a legitimate reason for leaving. Unlike non-cult organizations that recognize a person's inherent right to choose to move on, mind control groups make it very clear that there is no legitimate way to leave. Members are told that the only reasons why people leave are weakness, insanity, temptation, brainwashing (by deprogrammers), pride, sin, and so on. ... Although cult members will often say 'Show me a way that is better than mine and I will quit,' they are not allowed the time or mental tools to prove that statement to themselves. They are locked in a psychological prison." (from the book Combatting Cult Mind Control , by Steven Hassan, Park Street Press, pp. 78-84) Briefly, a Christian perspective on marks of a cult would be: They add to the Bible. They may have additional books of scripture or their leaders are the only spokesmen for God. These are considered more reliable than the Bible. They subtract from the person and work of Jesus. They claim to be the same species as Jesus, with the same potential. He is literally their older brother, all born in a pre-mortal life to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. Jesus is "a" god, but not "the" God of the Bible. They subtract from the atonement by adding missionary, sacrificial etc... work as a necessity for eternal life. They multiply the requirements for salvation. Jesus' atonement on the cross is not enough, a person must add all sorts of works for the organization to merit eternal life. They divide between themselves and Christianity. For example, the Mormons say they are "the only true church" and the only ones who represent God on earth. They thus divide themselves from the Christian community. They do not recognize any Christian baptism as valid, only those performed by the LDS priesthood. (reply to this comment)

From Banshee Monday, May 03, 2004, 05:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you for posting this. For me it is very helpful to read things like this, as it continues to remind me just how deep the claws of the cult went into my life. It helps me to think about myself and my actions and to see in which ways the cult still influences my life. I know that it takes time, but I continue to work on eradicating the parts of cult life and thinking that might still linger. Especially having grown up in the cult, and not joining it, I think that I would be fooling myself if I were to believe that I have obliterated all shadows of my youth. In some ways we were the most brainwashed of all, since it started from the day we were born, so I have found that I must continue to find the little spaces in my brain that still need to be cleaned out. Reading things like this helps to bring those spaces to my attention, because I stop and examine my thought patterns and opinions and habits and try to evaluate if any are still influenced by my past life. What really sets me off, though, when I read stuff about cults and how they are defined is how often and repeatedly we were told that TF was “so different, so elite, so unlike any other group or ‘sect’ (read: cult) or Christian out there, it is only us, we are it, we’re the 144,000, etc.” and for many years I believed that. Then to have my mind set free to realize that THAT very mentality and belief made them just like every other cult! For some reason this was a very liberating realization for me; to finally understand that TF was actually a cult in the very most fundamental way, and not just some “group” that I happened to not agree with. To hear GoldenMic and others from his cult post on here about such familiar beliefs and mentality from their cult was really interesting as well, as that is one of the first times I’ve ever heard directly from an ex-member from another cult. (Yeah, okay, so I was sheltered.) We obviously have a lot that relates to each other, and so it revalidates just how much of a cult TF is, no matter how “special” or “different” they like to think of themselves as. I also think that the quicker one is to realize TF is a cult, the quicker and easier it is to see things clearer, and to shed the vestiges of a former life. It seems to me that some of the people who have posted on this site with a “your life wasn’t that bad, shut up and get over it,” are the ones who have also expressed a “TF-isn’t-really-a-cult” (or something similar) opinion. It’s interesting.(reply to this comment)

from highonhigh Friday, August 22, 2003 - 16:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I think TF today is the same self righteous, liars, arrogant, decivers, hipocrits & there is very litlle hope for a real change. They belive they are better than everyone else, they think they are so special that they can do whatever they want with the word of God. a few days ago this cm team came to our town to rise funds for their so called mission. they talk so bad about evengelicals, catholics & everyone else is lukewarm not living 100% & all the bunch of BS they always say to exer & outsiders. Now they were here selling children's books, cards posters from an evengelical publisher & the people they are visiting is churchy christian that buy their stuff, catholic schools & christian book shops. so I ask one of them how come you guys are selling that if there is a GN that says to stop distribuing anything that is not family made & the guy told me that that counsel was just for Brasil but colombia venezuela & equador are surviving on the selling of this type of christian material from the system. TF is almost dead & those still in are living for themselves trying to mantain their way of life out of pride. Sorry for the mistakes english is not my mother language (reply to this comment)

from venusbutterfly Friday, August 22, 2003 - 10:51 (Agree/Disagree?) & Krisskiki, if you care for or have contact with these girls trying to lose their babies or let's say end their pregnancies PLEASE pass on the following message to them: tell them it's their body, no one will be able to do anything for them once they have sequels they WILL regret, however (and i'm not pro abortion as a solution to irresponsibility!) if someone has done all they can to prevent an undesired pregnancy then what is so wrong in ending it? why do they feel they have to use their "creative ways" to do so when in a lot of countries interrupting a pregnancy is covered by health insurance - oh, but then again, insuring one's self might still not be the "in" thing to do in TF. in any case, it's UNFAIR for the young girls to mutilate their bodies (because that's what happens inside most the times) just because of fear, and if everything is so good now then they shouldn't be scared, or in any case responsibility should be taken for one's actions, if they messed up then they need to go and face up to it and that way get it over with the best way possible for themselves, the leaders who condone abortion are NOT the ones who will have to live with or care about the damage done by such actions. ok, i got a bit carried away here but i could still go on for hours - and not only on this subject, but every individual needs to face up to their own responsibilities and stop fearing what others think. it's YOUR bodies at stake here girls, and they are irreplaceable! think about that (reply to this comment)

from venusbutterfly Friday, August 22, 2003 - 10:37 (Agree/Disagree?) uhm.....i find this whole "debate "truly interesting and would love to partake more in detail but lack some time right now. i was just wondering, if everything is really all that "rosy" wtf was the story with excomming all of Brazil?! what major sins did they commit? i didn't really follow the whole story but stumbled accross "mama's" letter to them.... and just one more thing before i leave you all...i think this young girl will soon (or not so soon) realise she should've waited a while before speaking, as by my own experience, it takes quite a while to get thinking with our own personal brain - if you see what i mean... talk to you all soon! (reply to this comment)

from Joe H Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 18:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Sounds to me like they've just gotten far more evil. Let me explain. Think about where you might be now if you had never gotten beaten or sexually abused, if the Family was the so-called "decent environment" people claim it has morphed into. You might still be selling posters, getting in "the Word," having babies, and making absolutely nothing with your life. In ten years, the kids who leave will be even sadder cases than we were - they'll have all the ignorance and stupidity but none of the strength you get from abuse. I pity them. (reply to this comment)

from katrim4 Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 18:13 (Agree/Disagree?) When I first left the Family, I truly thought TF had changed and was now an okay group to belong to. I didn't think my life revolved around Family policy. I never read any letters, had a job and thought I did pretty much whatever I wanted. My decision to leave was mainly financial. It angered me to see VS homes and WS homes living so much better than the average field homes I had lived in throughout my life. There was a question printed in a one of the last Grapevines I ever saw that said something to the effect of "Is it true that the people in Mama's home have to go with little or insufficient food sometimes?" And the reply was that of course it was not true and that the people in Mama's home ate and had their needs met "just as well as the average family person does". That of course was b.s. They have things much better! I'm pretty sure that at least 90% of the people on this site have known hungry days and inadequate meals because there just wasn't enough food coming in through the provisioning. Throughout the letters I had read while growing up there had been an idea given of the kinds of foods consumed in that household and not once had it included a shortage of milk, meat or anything for that matter. I cringed every time I saw 14% of the money coming in going to clothe, feed, and otherwise support people that I had little or no respect for as individuals and who did absolutely nothing for me. After I had been out of TF for a while and had gotten on with my life, I began to see that I was wrong. While I still think Family finances are grossly mismanaged, I no longer hold the illusion that TF has changed to the point that I once thought it had. While it may be true that TF is no longer as closely knit as it once was and they have "stopped" condoning certain illegal activites, it is at it's core the same rotten apple it has been for decades. While I have nothing against the average Family person I still cannot in my mind justify anyone's reasoning behind staying in the group. If it is for a way of life, why not just continue the way of life without paying for it? My opinion on that is that most people still in TF are comforted in knowing that other people are doing the same thing. "Everyone else is doing it, why can't I?" For the most part (with a few exceptions that I'm sure someone will be happy to point out) it is a dishonest lifestyle. And why anyone would want to bring their children up in that cult is beyond me. If you want to homeschool your kids you can still do that without being in TF. Especially in the US there are wonderful support systems set up for homeschoolers. I have heard many things recently on the parents right to raise their children. I say, parents claim that right and raise them without harmful influences such as Loving Jesus and The Law of Love. (And if you think that those are not harmful influences, poor you and your poor children.) If you want to help others and your way of life is enableing you to do that, join a church. They have missionaries too. Not only are their missionaries provided for financially like a regularly employed person, but they may offer many more real benefits that TF does not (like food and clothes for the people you are trying to help instead of just a song and a prayer). The list goes on and on and on. Everything that people do in TF that they use as a reason (read: excuse) to stay can be done without the help of being in TF. With one BIG exception. The only thing you can't do/have is the letters and that direct link with Zerby and Co. So at the end of the day, the only real valid reason to be in the Family is to follow the directions and teachigs of Berg, Zerby and WS. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 18:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Excellent analysis Kat. It's sad that evil people can have such influence over people's minds. Let's just hope that Berg's cult doesn't last as long as Joseph Smith's cult. When you said "I still cannot in my mind justify anyone's reasoning behind staying in the group," I was reminded of Joe's (my) fundamental rule of psychology: "People are idiots" I fall back on that all the time; it really is the key to understanding human behavior.(reply to this comment)

From katrim4 Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 18:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Sad but true Joe. Sad but true. Did you know that my Dad was on acid when god "told him to join the COG"? He told that "testimony" once to a group of teens at a school and I couldn't help but think " You were on acid and yet you still think it was a good decision. You idiot."(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 19:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Remeber that song "But I got high"? I guess his song could be "I went and joined a mind-fucking cult, cause I got fried. I wasted 20 years for a perv, cause I got fried" and so on.(reply to this comment)

from Gar Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 15:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Krisskiki, you may or may not have been expecting some of these reactions to your article, the fact of the matter is that the longer you've been out the more clearly you see "the trees" and the more obvious it is to one how duped and manipulated you've been. Even the fact of you thinking everything is "hunky dory" now and the family has changed, and people aren't controlled by the leadership anymore etc.. is all a part of that brainwashing/information control that the Fam leadership has on people. The fact of the matter is that although they think they are free to follow the Lord in their own "Faith" they really are bound by their past and all the 3 hours of "word" they have to read everyday of TF's propaganda. Also, the more you find out about the Fam's true history, the more you see how the "building" that stands now is built on a foundation of lies, cover ups and the personal dreams (sick, perverted) of DB. (Which has been faithfully carried on by "the keeper of the flame," his devoted ex lover now Queen) Just the fact that Maria and Peter maintain that Berg was ever wrong shows you that the family is still being led by the same entity. So no matter how much it "changes" it can never be close to that until they renounce DB and most of the letters. I also have family in TF and I don't want them in jail, but it angers me that people like Fam leadership continue to dupe them and keep them in bondage. What I hope and pray for is that the real culprits get it. Here are some good links that helped me, if you are interested: http://www.excult.org/whydavid.html http://www.excult.org/spiritworld.html (reply to this comment)

From thixotropic Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 15:34 (Agree/Disagree?) 3 hours of word time? That alone makes having left worthwhile! Gee, 20% of a waking day, if you sleep 8 hours (heehee-- or this way, you sleep 11 hours, heehee).(reply to this comment)

from JudasChrist Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 06:11 (Agree/Disagree?) If it's so "nice", why did U leave? U mustn't portray a peachy picture of the cult life. My parents still have connections with that group and I've been to a few homes RECENTLY!!!! Cults, support group settings, churches etcetera R for the WEAK, it is 1 thing 2 sit and debate, but 2 go over, and over, and over about either how bad or how good the cult is just trivial. Either Re-Join Or Fuck It All 2 hell...I mean, we were all born in it, have connections 2 it for that reason or another, yet it doesn't have 2 be on Ur mindand/or lips 24/7...Half of U oughtta' rejoin and talk 2 Ur old leaders, disciplinarians and abusers about how U REALLY feel, get in contact with them somehow; what purpose do U serve harping on these subjects and whining on a rehular basis? "Ohhh, we have 2 vent" U say. Yeah well, is it REALLY helping U? NO!!! U've said enough (Tis' A free WORLD(??) Say what U will). I'm currently majoring in Psychology (Cuyamaca College, San Diego), and the BEST advice I shall give at this time is that the BEST therapy would be 2 get the shit outta' Ur system by contacting the guilty parties. It's 1 thing 2 have fun and party. (I'm ALL about Hedonism, partying, LOUD music, and the likes), but alot of U have taken 1 extreme 2 another. I just got a HUGE collection of Photos from a friend I converse with, whom I got in contact with on this site. This poor creature (like many of U), is hurting inside and covers it up by HARD drinking and diverse drugs. U (like this un-4-Tunate soul) may have decided 2 do so in the long run, yet the cult's abuses and post-stress may have given U a boost!! I mean, this creation looked like a walking corpse...And the friends in the photos. SAD!! Anyway....That was geared 2-Wards some-1..U can apply this as well though...U know it! (Maybe act...I took courses at UofA, didn't need 2..I was born an actor). With as much drama as we suffered in TF, we can make the BEST actors/actresses musicians etc. I'm NOT trying 2 tell any-1 what 2 do. Many on this site have lucrative careers and rewarding jobs, as do I (Nurse), but was merely stating my 4m of release as well as hobby which includes music (listening, creating), and writing..It's L8. I must retire 4 the night, www.goddamngod.20megsfree.com (Daniel B. Cynthia R.I.P.) (reply to this comment)

from Cultinvator Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 05:34 (Agree/Disagree?) I sense truth in your perspective of what the family is to you. I'm sure you feel that way to the most part. Nice idealistic view of updated suburbian family. My mother is out stranded with a crackhead of ideals and nice temporary homes to live for. I'm sure she's partly to blame for her decisions to belive in the unbelievable. I'm sure prophecy is not solely a script from ws psyche download. I'm sure there is some selfassured coherance to problemsolving in the mind of the hundreds and thousands of individuals just making a living withe the tools that are available and the scenario surrounding. It's the same story as always... humans dealing with their environment. I guess you can say that many of the views on this site are somewhat outdated. But remember the thoughts are not out of thin air... just because they're in the past doesn't make them unreal. Many people have a problem with the lack of realness to the structure in the family. The tithing system, even though you could compare it to every pitiful religion out there, is still an easy way for the leadership to make a living out of their dream instead of dispersing the power somewhat. Christian Communism is the acclaimed truth by acts 2:44 and 45, but now it's "just families, making it out the best way they can? Doesn't it sound like a desperate cry for survival from both the leadership and the peasants supporting this "dream" of Mr. Berg? The family fellowship is not what bothers us, the family sharing, is not what bothers many of the ex-members. Fuck, I love sex, and lots of it. It's the fact that no one can depend on anything, all the uncertainty, from revolution to revolution. The obvious appeal to making children factories to keep the reproduction going at the expense of people who have lives to live out before feeling ready to become Eves. The "correction" tactics, and charter interpretations by leaders that go unchallenged by any checks and ballances. Pricks get away with blooddy murder if they feel like it. Living other peoples lives for them istead of truly living "by faith" because the "moves of the spirit" and all kinds of name gargon explains life away for them so that their true dreams are just taxed away by psychic purist views of simplistic "assembly of God" throwup from a retired pastor who had a hard time dealing with his family, his environment an his society, appologetic about his deviances, and weak about his bias. Truthful, my ass... the guy passed flirty fishing, and couldn't grasp the need for individuality... Psychic vampires is what they are. May they burn in hell for all their "good intentions". Inconsistent bastards. The world is a hard cold place, but at least you can depend on your choice to make your own private space a better one and grow from there. The family invades that space and shits on it while putting a yoke on it and calling it a revolutionary move. They can my dick!~ (reply to this comment)

From krisskiki Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 22:49 (Agree/Disagree?) The family fellowship is not what bothers us.....It's the fact that no one can depend on anything, all the uncertainty, from revolution to revolution.....Inconsistent bastards. Cultinvator, since when is ANYTHING consistent or certain?(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 00:42 (Agree/Disagree?) We consistently & constantly have young 'uns like yourself coming here & defending the family for whatever reason. Most of them seem to have a bit of a clue what is going on though. So you're slightly different. Don't you have homework?(reply to this comment)

From Opinionated Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 01:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Even funnier, it seems they are adamantly "not defending the family", instead they're seeking to impose their perception of what "the family" is to them. (apparently its not as bad as we think). What they don't seem to realise is that each Ex 2nd gen individual sees "The Family" differently, and that is because we are, thankfully, individuals. - In saying that though, I know very few who continue to think "The Family" is a good environment on the whole (except, it seems, those who have recently left). This is just suspicion, but these recent commentators sound more and more like "new improved, wanna-be family spokespersons", perhaps out to fight "the family enemies" on behalf of god/ Bergus Christ. If anything they seem to want to be argued with, their opinions and statements are so one-sided, biased, closed minded and down right ignorant. - Bless their hearts though, they do help give you a chuckle. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 05:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Opinionated, I agree 100% with you that 'each Ex 2nd gen individual sees "The Family" differently, and that is because we are, thankfully, individuals'. In what I have said I have never once (intentionally) tried to discredit another's viewpoint. Rather I have explained mine! You'd better believe that I'm no 'wannabe Family spokesperson', I'm just someone who enjoys a debate. And particularly in a forum such as MovingOn, where the majority of comments share the same viewpoints, it's a lot of fun to bring up the 'other side'. In other words, if you all weren't so busy trying to convince me of your side, I would simply find another topic (forum?) in which to debate. So, although it'll be hard to find a 'one-sided, biased, closed minded and down right ignorant' statement which I have made (with the possible exception of 'ignorant'), yes I AM doing this for debate!(reply to this comment)

from Christy Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 00:26 (Agree/Disagree?) While there is truth to much of what you say, it's only partial truth. While I've been out for a few years now and can't speak for exactly how things are now, a lot of what you're saying could have been said at the time that I left. I was in a little home in Eastern Europe that I opened along with a few friends. While we had regular contact with other homes in other cities and countries, we never had any visits from outside leadership (although I attended several area leadership meetings). I was doing my best to be a good missionary/aid worker and that was really my only reason for being there. I didn't buy into much of what was coming out in the pubs and there was nobody around to make sure that I (or anyone else in my home) was adhering to these various "revelations". TF simply provided some sort of organization and structure to accomplish a task. (Not a good structure, however, as the group has too many strikes against it with past and current beliefs and practices. I don't think you can ever truly succeed as a missionary in TF as they just have too much dirty laundry waiting to be exposed and threatening to ruin anything you try to establish.) What you are saying isn't the whole picture. Yes, things have changed since the combo and school days. However, it's simply not true that people’s lives are no longer controlled by leaders. There's always some new revolution or tighten up, some new big "move of the spirit". What about the S2K and the Conviction vrs Compromise series'? When the S2K came out I was no longer on the mission field. I was still in TF but was already taking college classes. I knew that the pressure would soon be on to accept all the revelations and doctrines that had been coming out. I also knew that my days of higher education would be numbered if I chose to stay. After the S2K I had leaders giving me prophecies about how I needed to show that I was on board with the new weapons by having dates with a married guy. I had nothing against the guy--he was about my age, attractive, and we got along great. However, I saw this as a final wake-up call that if I stayed in TF, I would always have people interfering with my personal choices and beliefs. A few days later I submitted my decision to leave. Then there's education. I'm glad they finally have some system of accountability in educating their children. It's about friggin' time. But who's to say that each of these home schooling parents is qualified to teach their children? From my understanding putting children in outside schools is still strongly frowned upon. While the CLE is better than nothing, it's enough to bore any child to tears. I teach elementary school and I can tell you that there are so many effective teaching models and strategies out there that the family has never heard of. They're still stuck using the Childcare Handbooks and the Glenn Doman method. I read the Conviction versus Compromise letter. I was no longer in TF at the time so I don't know how each area reacted to it. It did seem pretty clear that it was coming down hard on people who had jobs, let their kids attend school, were trying to acquire property, or basically do anything to prepare for a realistic future. Then there's partial ex-com. If someone breaks a rule they end up having to miss out on just about anything enjoyable for months at a time. How's that lack of leadership interference in their lives? Sorry, I just don't buy it. (reply to this comment)

from Ne Oublie Monday, August 18, 2003 - 08:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Krisskiki, Very well put, and well written! I agree with most of what you wrote - and I suspect that the majority of our discrepancies will be due to the different locations where we respectively lived. First of all, most of the CM Family members I know do NOT have jobs, they either live off of government benefits (most of Western Europe) and/or by face painting or selling balloons. In Asia I would say that the majority support themselves through selling Family products, or through their 'CTP' activities. I haven't been to any homes outside of Western Europe and Asia, so can't really speak for how things are there. The other point is that although the vast majority of Family homes are single-family, there still are a few 'combos', which operate very much like in the old School Days. The main difference being that the majority of Family kids that I know of are following some sort of non-Family school curriculum (Beka and CLE come to mind - both are 'sanctioned' by Family leadership and are VERY widely used). You're right about the Family not being as cohesive as it once was - or, indeed, as the leadership would like it to be. So many Family young people I know spend their time raising funds through balloons or face-painting, and then travelling around the world. IMO most of these YP are in the Family because it provides them with an 'easy' lifestyle, where they can basically live off of others' income between jet-setting to the next party. In recent online discussions I have found Family young people unable to identify Family publications, leading me to assume that they simply haven't read them - as I've said before, the TRF is a couple of 'checks' in the appropriate boxes. And as long as they put up a good front when 'leadership' is around, they can continue their lives without really living like Family members are expected to. THIS is why just reading the latest GN's doesn't give one an accurate picture of what life in the Family really is. Oh, and Sunny, I know of at least 5 CM Homes which have bought their property - some are larger, but the majority are still owned by an individual member. I also know of a lot of members who have considerable private income through various import/export or other marketing schemes. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, August 22, 2003, 10:13 (Agree/Disagree?) It may be true that some people manage to buck the tide and go ahead with what they want to do as far as owning property or whatever but those few are considered weak brethren and are looked down by the more "righteous" members. Ugh! I'm SO glad I don't have to deal with all that stuff anymore! (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, August 22, 2003, 11:29 (Agree/Disagree?) HA! You're so obviously out of touch with the Family! Actually, the brethren who own their homes are usually the 'stronger' ones - and so far I haven't heard a single negative comment (even from the CO's), if anything, people want to do it themselves!(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, August 22, 2003, 12:40 (Agree/Disagree?) If they are so "strong" and "on board" why are they disobeying recent exhortations to refrain from buying property, etc??? If the people you're talking about who own their own homes are part of the leadership hierarchy then I can understand it as there have always been different rules for those who have made it up the ladder... I realise that these things are subjective, maybe we've just seen different sides of the coin.(reply to this comment)

From Gar Friday, August 22, 2003, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you are the one out of touch. Just because people go ahead and do things against family rules and the CO's don't say anything, doesn't mean a thing. The family's immediate "shepherding" is very weak with little or no supervision of the typical home. (Unless of course you live in a more populated city home wise) But the fact is that the GN's discourage it and it is looked down on by top family leadership. I know first hand because my in-laws just bought a home and are still CM.(reply to this comment)

From Cacao Monday, August 18, 2003, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right when you say that this is diferent according to the location the family is. Where I live the family does hardly anything kids whith in it smoke grass and talk about soccer and music, homes are quite poor and are made of no more than 2 or 3 adults and their kids, some still witness some should just live a normal life and do something alse like sending their kids to a good school or university.guys in most places the family died!! the only time i hear about it it's when i come here for some news!!(reply to this comment)

From EyesWideShut Monday, August 18, 2003, 10:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Dom, I'm not sure why you directed the property comment to me. I didn't say anything about that. Comment?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 18, 2003, 14:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry Sunny - my bad! That last paragraph was meant to be in response to 'Failure's post. I read through them too fast. My apologies!(reply to this comment)

from EyesWideShut Monday, August 18, 2003 - 01:51 (Agree/Disagree?) t is obvious that you left recently, as you said. It is also obvious that you are quite young--under 20? Most of my family is still in the group. You said no one is still being abused emotionally. An ignorant statement. Education is supposed to be looked out for now, yet they recently made an affair of taking their children out of System School. It did not seem like a "choice" in the GN that I read. You either had the conviction to do so, or you were a "compromizer". People are still discouraged from holding jobs. I know for a fact that many homes continue to "hit the pavements". How does one "deliberately try to lose a baby" without having an abortion? Parsley? Too many jumping jacks? Prayer? Have you tried? Declaring that you haven't "seen one person go on a prophecy that someone else got for them", doesn't prove anything, except that you haven't much. No one posts stories and comments on this site "in the hopes that kids get taken away & people thrown in jail". That is just so last season. It can't be done and never worked before simply because the Family is too good at pulling the wool over the authorities' eyes. Our goal is to build support for eachother by speaking about things that hurt us. Our goal is to sew "seeds of doubt" in the hearts of the Family people who visit this site out of sheer curiosity. Our goal is to bring abusers to justice--or at least remove the blanket of silence. Basically, I think your little post was absolutely silly, albeit amuzing. (reply to this comment)

From krisskiki Monday, August 18, 2003, 23:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Sunny, yes I am under 20 I know your family is still cm...when's the last time you went to see them? the emotional abuse issue, someone already replied to, so i won't waste my time. "they" made an affair of taking their kids out of school? I know plenty of parents who didn't take their kids out so..Who is "they"? a lot of things are discouraged in the family, but that doesn't stop people from doing them how does one deliberately try to lose a baby...well, I know 2 girls personally who went through that ordeal, & I don't want to write out in graphic details all that they went through, but have you ever exercised for hours on an empty stomach until you threw up & fainted? I personally have not gotten pregnant, but I made it clear to the last guy I was with in the fam, that I would leave & get an abortion if I got knocked up, & he respected that & was really careful. I don't understand this post sunny...clarify? I haven't seen much? I think I've seen more application (or not)of prophecy than you have. If you're serious about bringing abusers to justice, then do something about it! Quit bitching about the past & get the fucker now! Taking a page from your book...Basically, I think your little post was absolutely silly, albeit amuzing...to see how ignorant you really are.(reply to this comment)

From silentsufferer Monday, August 18, 2003, 07:34 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you Sunny in all points, but I want to comment on the matter of trying to deliberately lose a baby. Maybe what I have to say as a result of my own experience will help someone out there. I stayed pregnant when I was 16. I lost the baby because the child’s father PRAYED for it. He was a “leader” of responsibility at that time, having the “strongest faith”. As a result of his prayer – the HELL in my life started... For a couple of years after my miscarrige I was going through spiritual and mental torture and suffering, such as never known before. I became a “victim” of the “spiritual world” of demons and hell and hardly stayed alive myself. I still have pain in my uterus and as a result of it I might never be able to have kids again. I sincerely wish that he had taken me to HOSPITAL to a real DOCTOR for an abortion, or had let me KEEP the baby. His “prayer” choice came with a highest PRICE attached.(reply to this comment)

From EyesWideShut Monday, August 18, 2003, 10:41 (Agree/Disagree?) My god! That's some messed up shit.(reply to this comment)

From silentsufferer Monday, August 18, 2003, 11:00 (Agree/Disagree?) yes, indeed it WAS a messed up shit,believe me you don't wanna know how messed up it really was...I only wanted to give a short-version of a first hand account/experience, hoping it would help some young teen girls "out there" or still "in there", on how NOT to "lose a baby" once they had got pregnant(reply to this comment)

From Eaglebleeds Monday, August 18, 2003, 03:01 (Agree/Disagree?) To say TF still abuses people emotionally is to vague. For instance, the way it is in society aint that different. Every religion has their beliefs that are taught/imposed to the next generation. So in a way, yeah, they`re being abused emotionally if they don`t want it. But everywhere and everyone has to listen, not necessarily do, to what they`re parents say. But you can`t fight that cause it`s the parents right to teach it. And other people that can choose anything they want also get abused in a way. So would you say everyone around the world is getting abused emotionally? Cause whether they are or not, it is legal in that sense. To me there`s a definite line between illegal stuff that went on and what I didn`t like but is legal. I do agree that those who did illegal stuff need to pay for their actions. What Krisskiki said was pretty much true. Your comment on the education and fundraising tactics (depending what country) are right on too. TF has a long way to go in educating their children. I know of some that are doing a good job and those are the few whose children speak out on how good their education is. But the rest, which is the majority, seriously lack it. (reply to this comment)

From neezy Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 19:31 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From neezy Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 20:00 (Agree/Disagree?) "The parent's right to teach" wtf is that something they taught you in the family?(reply to this comment)

From Eaglebleeds Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 23:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Where do you know of that parents don`t have the right to teach their kids their beliefs? I didn`t say its a law. It`s a right just like they can choose where the kid goes to school, what clothes to get him, etc..... Naturally as the child gets older he or she will make their own decisions. (reply to this comment)

From neezy Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 00:17 (Agree/Disagree?) You see here's the fucken problem... It's not their right, it's their obligation. It's the only fucking thing they should be thinking about once they have kids. It really doesn't matter what the parent happens to think is right. It's about what's right for the KID. It's about planning your kid's futures(real fucken futures), not exercising your right to teach your kid dumb shit that you're convinced will help him become a succesful & useful member of society in fucken la la land. Speaking of rights.. If our parents had exercised some of our fucken rights as children, would we even be here having this stupid conversation about the rights of our parents!?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 04:52 (Agree/Disagree?) If one truly holds the right to make a choice, then they also hold the right to make the WRONG choice. To eliminate any options from one's choice is to effectively eliminate their ability to make that choice. Thus, either one has the right to choose, or they don't!(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 19:17 (Agree/Disagree?) You enjoy debating the obvious don't you? Yes of course they can choose to become big failures in life as they see fit. It's their god given right dammit..!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 19:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you! You have just answered your own question, which I have copied below: "The parent's right to teach" wtf is that something they taught you in the family? In your own words "the parent's right to teach" is "their god given right", in which they are free to "choose to become big failures in life as they see fit". Unfortunately, some have chosen this last option - however, not wanting to infringe on another's freedoms I am not in a position to dictate their actions.(reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, August 22, 2003, 06:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Fascinating stuff.. what will you be debating next? The zebra's right to wear stripes? The criminals right to make 'mistakes' here & there? But what exactly is your point? Is it unfortunate our parents couldn't be bothered LEARNING from their repeated mistakes? Unfortunate that they stayed in the cult when the whole time they had the coice to leave? & is it unfortunate that despite the fact that you fail to notice, the place is & always will be a fucked up place to grow up? It is unfortunate that you'll probably feel the need to keep this extremely boring discussion going though..(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, August 22, 2003, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Ironic that you're trying to blame me for this discussion, when I was merely answering your own question: "The parent's right to teach" wtf is that something they taught you in the family? If you would come out with a similar question regarding a 'zebra's right to wear stripes' I may take you up on the debate... then again, I couldn't really care less about zebras! To answer your latest question my POINT was simply that parents DO have the right to teach their children whatever religious beliefs they choose.(reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, August 22, 2003, 18:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Well it still wasn't ironic, & I haven't blamed you for anything. & when did I ever mention religion!? When someone says the parents right to teach.. why do you automatically aussume it means the right teach religion!? Who said anything about religion? Religion doesn't even come into it. It's a complete non-issue. But then again your sentence wouldn't have sounded too good without the word religion chucked in there would it? "parents DO have the right to teach their children whatever(screwy) beliefs they choose."(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, August 22, 2003, 18:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you already forgotten the original statement by Eaglebleeds which you were questioning? I'll clip it here for your reference: 'Every religion has their beliefs that are taught/imposed to the next generation. So in a way, yeah, they`re being abused emotionally if they don`t want it. But everywhere and everyone has to listen, not necessarily do, to what they`re parents say. But you can`t fight that cause it`s the parents right to teach it.' WHERE did I get the religion theme from - I got it from the discussion! My point still stands, even as you worded it, as a matter of fact that's exactly the point I was making. It doesn't really matter how 'screwy' a belief is, or whether or not I agree with it, the fact is that it's the parent's choice.(reply to this comment)

From Earbleeds Friday, August 22, 2003, 19:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Your right Eaglebleeds did mean religion. Get this man a shiny star..! But I've actually been talking to YOU since you 'took up the torch'.. More specifically, I've been responding to your babbling about 'the parents right to teach their kids to become big fat failures'. As I understand it, you can't fucken fail at religion can you(which exlpains a lot)? So I assume YOU weren't talking about religion, since you never mentioned it once till now. Seriously though, I'd hate to be your kid.. Do you use that excuse regularly?(reply to this comment)

From Je m'en Souviens Friday, August 22, 2003, 19:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't disagree that the parent has a choice of what religious beliefs to teach their children. I was reminded by your post, however, of the passionate defense I heard when growing up from my parents and their peers of their right to teach me and my peers what they chose, but they were lumping in with "teaching" us this other aspect of "doing" things to us that they expected to get away with because they believed in doing the stuff. Not that I think you are saying the same thing (at least...or were you?), but that is usually what the Family meant when I was growing up there: "we have a right to teach our kids according to our religion and do to them the things we believe in because of our religion and to limit what we do to our children is religious persecution and tyranny." Even in the free USA it's not legal to smoke ganja just because you're a rastafarian and you can't freely sacrifice animals just because it's part of your religion or marry more than one person at once because you're a fundamentalist mormon in the old-fashioned style. I can't just say "I'm a Satanist and my religion requires/allows me to have human sacrifices so you can't punish me for that." In hands-on religions where your degree of religiousness is largely measured on the extent to which your life implements that religion, it's easy to forget that there is a difference between beliefs and acts. In a religion that prizes "Conviction" versus "Compromise," stressing living as a "110%er" your beliefs, it is important if one has beliefs that are illegal, to make a very ultra super clear line between beliefs and acts... Also, while parents have rights, children do too. As in so many areas in society, balancing them can be tricky, but we must remember that the UN statement of children's rights sets out things that every child is entitled to. If one's parenting is extreme, it could conceivably be in conflict with those children's rights. Who is it who said "my freedom ends where yours begins?"(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Friday, August 22, 2003, 09:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Neez, first of all I'm sorry that I'm going to drag this discussion on, but I wanted to tell you something from my perspective as a parent: You have touched on one of the most difficult aspects of parenthood and one that often fills me with dread - I am acutely aware that decisions I make in the care of my children will affect them deeply and I take that responsibility very seriously. I want to give them a life they deserve, one full of opportunity, endlessly challenging, fulfilled and happy most of all. But the fact that I desperately want to do what's best for them doesn't make it any easier to know what to do when it comes to difficult issues such as religion, discipline, etc -- I do my utmost to raise my girls in a positive, secure and relaxed atmosphere because I believe it's important that they feel my love unconditionally, but as much as I wish I could be a perfect mother I have to be realisitic and face the fact that I will make mistakes. If and when you become a parent you will find out what a complex and demanding job it is, and it will become obvious to you that a simplistic statement such as "It really doesn't matter what the parent happens to think is right. It's about what is right for the KID.", while it sounds true enough, does not even begin to do the subject justice. How does one seperate what one feels is right for one's child from what is right for that child? Who decides what is "right"? -- Even the experts don't agree on every single aspect of child- rearing, and in the end the buck stops at the parent. When it comes to parents in TF I feel that there are varying degrees of abdication of parental responsibility - There are many who failed their children by allowing perverts to prey on them, leaving them with random guardians who did not have their best interests at heart, etc, and finally leaving their children to suffer through years of hurt and anguish once they had left, while blissfully living on in their own deluded dream world of service to God. I just don't feel that ALL parents in TF have failed their children. I really don't. My parents are great. I love them and do not feel a lot of anger towards them personally regarding my experience of growing up in TF. Sure, there were times when I was younger when I thought they were unfair and that they disciplined me unjustly or whatever, but by and large they did their best and it was pretty good. They may not have prepared me for life ouside of TF but I don't hold that against them, they were following their hearts and thought they were doing right by me. Now when I see my younger brothers and sisters growing up, and I have a sister who is less than a year older than my oldest daughter, there are many things I don't agree with as far as the family policies my parents follow but that does not mean I think my parents are rotten parents. I may not agree with their child-rearing philosophies but I know that they love their kids. As far as their beliefs go well there are MANY MANY things I don't agree with, but I accept that they do have a right to believe whatever they want.(reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, August 22, 2003, 18:47 (Agree/Disagree?) No ones perfect, so why try harder?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 20:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you inferring that you don't agree that parents have a right to teach their children to share their own beliefs? Who then would have the right to make that decision?(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 00:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Would you believe my comment was actually an ironic short poem..? (note: this is sarcasm) (reply to this comment)

From Grammarnazi Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 22:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Did you maybe mean "implying"?(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 23:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey, what do you think you're doing stealing my title and my job. To clarify, Ne oublie was "inferring," and what's his name was implying.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 04:49 (Agree/Disagree?) There's a reason Language Arts was never my strongest subject. Thanks for the tips JoeH, and even you Grammarnazi - yes, I meant to say 'implying'.(reply to this comment)

From Grammarnazi Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 19:47 (Agree/Disagree?) So at what school did you struggle in Language Arts?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, August 21, 2003, 04:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Until the age of 12 I recieved my education from my Dad, after that I spent 6 years in the Karachi School.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 20:53 (Agree/Disagree?) The school of hard knocks. (reply to this comment)

From Cultinvator Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 06:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Yea, I'd say that someone who's slaved their everyday to make your life a bit more comfortable, and then being called traitors for merely wanting to move out of "mama's home" for a friekin brake... labeled in every GN even though 'repented' is considerable emotional strain, probably enough to get seisures. Who the fuck are you to say that's vague. I piti poor gabe who wanted a vacation from that blind bitch who can't even keep a decent relationship with her own kids, much less family members. Hiding under the cover of "security" instead of showing her real insecurities, her fucking lowsy control friek personality, I hope she trips on a wet condom and dies, bloody friek!(reply to this comment)

From krisskiki Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 22:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Yea, I'd say that someone who's slaved their everyday to make your life a bit more comfortable, and then being called traitors for merely wanting to move out of "mama's home" for a friekin brake... labeled in every GN even though 'repented' is considerable emotional strain, Clultinvator, are you talking from personal experience or are you just "quoting a GN"? You know, you can't believe everything you read.(reply to this comment)

From Cultinvator Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 05:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude, Society? What society? American, Asian? everything that is not you? That's pretty vague isn't it? Have you ever considered that your little click is a society, a closed one what while at it? So do you think we're defending "society" I'm not a systemite? I hate a lot of things about the system, but I hate your fucking system even more for being hypocritical about it. So if others do it, that's ok right, crappy reasoning. It's called group thinking. You use words like "legal" do you really know what legal is? Is that what equates to right and proper? You're full of it. Legal means what a community of interest groups decides that is legal, just like WS decides what is "comfortable" to their perspective. You will never know what being "out of the water" unless you quit "witnessing" and take in a breath of reality outside of your world of cult stereotypes. YOu don't know no real shit fucker. No one knows everything, but at least we don't go around waving "the truth" as if we did. (reply to this comment)

From Gar Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 10:09 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you Cultinvator, we do have to get out of that mindset that we have been programmed with. But it looks to me like you are doing a little too much "truth waving" yourself by pushing your agnostic theory on him. My opinion is that if you confess that you don't know the real "truth" (if there is one) then you shouldn't condemn someone for thinking they do. In other words, you are saying that the truth is that no one can really know the truth so you are pushing your "truth" on others. That’s exactly what you criticize in organized religion. You pride yourself in the fact that you admit "not to know" and that is supposed to be such a noble thing. I don't think so. I’d say you are in the same boat as everyone else, just a little less ambitious about finding an answer to the meaning of life. That's just my himble un assuming opinion. (reply to this comment)

From Opinionated Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 22:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Gezuz Khryst, what a screwed up little opinion! "My opinion is that if you confess that you don't know the real "truth" (if there is one) then you shouldn't condemn someone for thinking they do" - Has it occurred to you that we all know what you or "the Family" think is real "truth" - Been there done that, and not because any of us are so unintelligent to have actually chosen to but because it was forced on us as children and minors. As to whether Cultinvator is “pushing his truth on others” whilst blaming “The Family” for doing so, please allow me to put forward an illustrated question: If person X is being yelled at by Person Y(yeller), and in response X yells at Y to "stop yelling", does that make person X a hypocrite? - It seems you think so, and therefore it appears your logic is flawed if not non-existent. You allege that Cultinvator "prides himself in the fact that he admits not to know" - What makes you think he "prides himself" in it? Sure, he's not so presumptuous as to assume that he knows the "real truth", but he has every right to point out the obvious fallacies of what "the Family" teaches. He is in fact in a box seat for making these assumptions and comments seeing as your "real truth" was undoubtably shoved down his throat as a minor and found to be nothing more regurgitated spew, psychobabble from an evil paedophilic, child abusing schizophrenic, only creating confusion and harm. When someone leaves “The Family” particularly a second gen, who’s never experienced a “normal lifestyle” they know they don’t agree with what “the Family” teaches (on most occasions). However it is reasonable to assume it may take years if not a lifetime for an individual to understand or find beliefs which appeal to them, and which seem to make sense. This especially when considering being open minded to other religions was not an option in our childhood and was in fact ruthlessly prohibited. Regardless though, of whether they allege to know the “real truth” they have every right to argue against an opinion or belief they know to be nonsense. – I say this because you seem to have the opinion that if someone believes they know the “real truth”, they have more of a right to argue their point than someone who admits not to know the “real truth” for everyone. If I have misinterpreted what you’re saying then please explain yourself further. (reply to this comment)

From Gar Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 23:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Opinionated: First of all it earks me when you people like you mistakingly put TF's and Christian beleifs all in one bundle as if it were one and the same. My suggestion to you is to go and read the James Penn letter or go to this link and see how David Bergs "Christianity" was light and darkness from the real thing. http://www.excult.org/whydavid.html http://www.excult.org/spiritworld.html Now Therefore you cannot say that you have experienced Christianity if your only "Christianity" was in TF. Once we get that out of the way then we can discuss these things fairly. Now that being said I think I understood that Cultinvador was critizizing Eaglebleeds, not TF and thats what I was talking about, but maybe I missunderstood. I will not defend TF I can tell you that for sure. And totally agree with Cultinvador and that he has every right to point out fallacies with TF. That is a no-brainer. I do not have the opinion that people that "know the truth" have more right to voice their opinion. It's just that I don't think you can argue with "I don't know" it just doesn't hold water. You have to beleive in something. There is no neutral ground. (reply to this comment)

From Opinionated Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 01:46 (Agree/Disagree?) You assume I haven't read James Penn's letter. - Dude, I read that years ago, it is over 5 years old you know. Tell me, is that the new "real truth" you're now trying to peddle? Or are you simply trying to argue that we shouldn't throw out all Christianity because of the distasteful version we experienced in "the family"? - Either way, it seems you underestimate the amount of personal thought, study and discussion most people of semi-average intelligence put into deciding what they believe. As for your opinion that "It's just that I don't think you can argue with "I don't know" it just doesn't hold water. You have to believe in something. There is no neutral ground." - You are hopefully aware that knowledge is a gradual process, and that experience is gained over time. Does it not therefore seem reasonable to assume that a belief or opinion I hold today will probably be slightly if not entirely different 10 years from now? - Since I do believe that to be the case I also believe that if you can tell me now exactly what opinions you will have or what beliefs you will hold 10 years from now, you aren't just ignorant, but stupid. – Similarly if you think that “I don’t know” holds less water than supporting illogical fallacies known to be false. (reply to this comment)

From Gar Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 09:12 (Agree/Disagree?) 1. All I am saying is that in my opinion a person can't stand in a philosophically neutral position as if they believe nothing. 2.If your argument is that we are all still learning (and I am assuming you mean that some day might come to understand "truth") than who's to say that someone else (and I don't mean myself) might have come to that sooner than you. Anyone for that matter and the same applies for me. (And by the way I don't beleive I have attained a knowledge of the truth) 3. "supporting illogical fallacies known to be false." If I understood you correctly this is what you feel about Christianity, if so that is a pretty bold statement that I know for a fact you cannot support. No one has or can dismiss Christianity as false. That is a fallacie in and of itself. Now there are problems with it, that we don't understand, but as you said, we are still learning and may not fully understand it for years to come or even in this life. (that doesn't make it false)(reply to this comment)

From Opinionated Sunday, August 24, 2003, 02:41 (Agree/Disagree?) In response to your post: 1. “All I am saying is that in my opinion a person can't stand in a philosophically neutral position as if they believe nothing.” - Actually, yes, it’s called Nihilism. An online dictionary defines it (in part) as follows: Ni.hil.ism n. 1. Philosophy. A. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. B. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. 2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief. A person who holds a belief in this type of philosophy is a Nihilist. Since I don’t hold nihilistic beliefs, if you want to argue the validity of nihilism you would be best discussing it with someone who does. Now to your second point: “2. If your argument is that we are all still learning (and I am assuming you mean that some day might come to understand "truth") than who's to say that someone else (and I don't mean myself) might have come to that sooner than you.” Personally, I think “the truth” is relative to each individual and their understanding, level of spiritualism, intelligence, or whatever it is that’s required. My personal view is that each person should be comfortable with the opinions or beliefs they hold and not have someone else’s religious ideas forced or pushed on them. Spiritualism to me is a personal journey and has much to do with how we treat and relate to nature as well as other human beings, and which is also complicated by what our instincts or inner being tells us regarding right and wrong. Regarding whether someone may find “The Truth” before someone else. - If I knew the answer to that question I’d probably know the “Real Truth” as well. But to put a different perspective on what you’re saying, if someone is happy with a bag of peanuts, they may get to it before someone who wants a 7- course meal, however in the long run I’d probably want the 7-course, just a personal preference. And now to your third point: “3. "supporting illogical fallacies known to be false." If I understood you correctly this is what you feel about Christianity, if so that is a pretty bold statement that I know for a fact you cannot support. No one has or can dismiss Christianity as false. That is a fallacie in and of itself. Now there are problems with it, that we don't understand, but as you said, we are still learning and may not fully understand it for years to come or even in this life. (that doesn't make it false).” - You firstly work off of the assumption that my statement “supporting illogical fallacies known to be false” automatically equates with my overall opinion (or “feeling” as you put it) of “Christianity”, you state how “bold a statement” that was, and that “no one has or can dismiss Christianity as false”. – This method of misrepresenting what I’ve actually said is all too typical of how “Shepherds” in “The Family” would try to persuade you of how “astray” you are. - Get a grip! If I had actually said “Christianity is an illogical fallacy known to be false”, then yes you may have a point of getting on your high horse etc, etc. I personally pride myself in being open minded toward different ways of thinking, I’d like to think I generally try to see if not also consider the opposite standpoint or view in every possible occasion (within reason). Since we’re on the subject of “Christianity”, I ask what is it about it you are trying to defend as “truth”. – I’m assuming you don’t actually think we should be stoning adulterers and homosexuals in this day and age as the book of Leviticus legislates. – That’s right, because Jesus died on the cross etc, therefore “The Bible” cannot be quoted and acted on verbatim. “The Bible” is also subject to the most numerous, conflicting and inconsistent interpretations of just about any other book in the world. So I ask you again, what “Real Truth” are you trying to defend. Lets bring Berg’s interpretation of the Bible into discussion as an example. Berg had an incestuous relationship with his mother as a young man. When you consider this it seems all to clear why he was on a mission to dictate that this was ok by the Bible. He went through out his career as a pastor feeling completely disenfranchised, he was also dissatisfied that no one would agree with him on his “Law of Love” theory. The Hippies however were perfect for his ideas. People trying to get away from the guilt of strict family rules, religious prejudice or the disillusionment of the Vietnam war era. They wanted to practice “Free Love” and were given an answer to strict religious rules they were obviously rebelling from, and Berg wanted a following who would be led around by the nose, following his interpretations and ideas even when they defied all common sense. One thing about the life of Christ (the big “JC” – go DC Talk!! – My hero’s!) which always seemed a bit outrageous was the supposed virginal conception of Jesus’ mother. Personally, I could accept the explanation that she may have had pre-marital sex, but really, with an Angel. I recently came across this book called “The Marian Conspiracy” by Graham Phillips, he is probably what you’d consider an alternative historian, however in my opinion he gives a far more believable version of what probably happened. Based on previously hidden documentation it is considered that Jesus may have actually been the illegitimate grandson of King Herod. It goes on to explain why Herod wanted him killed after he was born, and obviously gives an plausible alternative explanation of the whole “angel” story. – I wouldn’t call anyone a dirty tramp, but seriously, if a girl came and told you she was pregnant from an angel would you actually believe her? – In that day and age it could have meant death by stoning (remember Leviticus) for sex outside of marriage so a lie of that magnitude would have probably been necessary for survival. I’d venture to say that on the balance of probabilities and considering what we know now about the human body due to science etc, someone would have a much harder time now trying to appeal to public superstition that it was all “the Angel’s” fault. As far as whether the bible contains fallacies, I’d say that’s anyone’s guess. Practically anyone can decide to read the bible and decide if it’s what they want to believe. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 18:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Everyone in the world who has the ability to think for themselves can dismiss anything they like as false when it comes to ideas than can't be proven. Whether one chooses to believe that there is more to life than what we can see, touch or comprehend is one thing, but the crux of the matter is that none of us knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what is "THE TRUTH" -- Even those who are adamant that some sort of God does exist, and certainly Christians, have to accept that we believe BY FAITH which in itself seems to confirm that it is not a straightforward act of "knowing" we are right, otherwise where does the faith come in??? I think that truth is a wholly personal, individual thing and who's to say that it can't be different for everyone? And who cares anyway? Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that we all have different perceptions of life and what is abhorrent to one person may make complete sense to someone else? I really couldn't care less whether or not my idea of truth is someone else's truth, and if they want to think I'm stupid for being "needy" enough to require the comfort of feeling that I am part of something bigger then that's how it will have to be. Certainly those of us who are more inclined to believe in the Spiritual should just lay off of those who are not in agreement with us... What exactly do you think you are going to accomplish by arguing against someone else's opinions when it's obvious that they just don't want to know? Just give it a rest and let people be what they are.(reply to this comment)

From Gar Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 19:29 (Agree/Disagree?) "Just give it a rest and let people be what they are." Why should I?? So that I can be like you?? Oh yeah your the real example of not pushing your ways on others, you just spent a whole three paragraphs doing it. Don't you see, everyone has a religion whether you like it or not. You just shared yours with us. (good for you) And by the way, why don't the "less" or non-spiritual ones of us (including yourself) just lay off those of us who are not in agreement with you. I have just as much right to argue my point as you do yours and will continue to do so just like you will. thank you(reply to this comment)

From Vicky Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 20:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Gar, perhaps you misunderstood my comment - I'm NOT criticising your opinions. I am actually a Christian, I am very open to Spiritual things and I respect anyone who is strong enough to come out and say loud and clear that they are believers because I know it can be difficult to be among the few nowadays that do, so I think you may have made an assumption about my beliefs that was slightly misguided. I have spoken openly about my faith on this site too and I am very sorry if you took my comment to mean that I think you're wrong to do so. By all means do! I think it is important that people realise that it is possible to come through the negative experiences relating to religion that many of us have had and still manage to retain even a shred of faith (mustard-seed size, maybe?), so in that respect I am totally on your side of the fence! The thing I objected to was your statement that "no one can or has dismiss Christianity as false"... Perhaps I just misunderstood what you were trying to say and maybe you meant "No one can or has disproved Christianity" which to me means something totally different. I just thought it was slightly misguided to state that people don't have the right to dismiss whatever they choose to dismiss - It doesn't make it any less right for you, just means that some people don't buy it and we who do have to be okay with that. (reply to this comment)

From Gar Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) right, I meant to say disprove, my bad. Hey that's great to know! The thing that threw me off with you was the whole everybodys got their own truth thing. Lets talk about this. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 20:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Sure, lets! I admit I am a bit of a "progressive Christian" so we may disagree on quite a few issues... The "Truth" thing with me is that I am not convinced that Christianity is the One and Only way to God; I am more inclined to believe that every person has to find a path that is right for them -- I foresee some interesting discussions on this subject, ha. I'm off to bed now but we'll talk later I'm sure... Peace!(reply to this comment)

From Gar Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 20:46 (Agree/Disagree?) cool, let's chat. Gar(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 15:53 (Agree/Disagree?) "No one has or can dismiss Christianity as false." Sorry buddy, I can, and have. But here goes one more time: Christianity is a load of hogwash perpetuated by someone who never even met the itinerant rabbi - Paul. The early "christians" hated Paul and tried to kill him, ostensibly because he preached Jesus' alleged message to the gentiles, but mainly because he thought Jesus was the son of God. Well I've got news for you. Jesus wasn't the son of God anymore than you or I or Osama Bin Laden is the son of God. He repeatedly refers to God as "OUR father." Your religion is based on a completely idiotic premise to boot. Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? What's the connection? When you forgive someone for something, do you nail one of your sons to a cross? Furthermore, who's to say he was actually resurrected? The gospels? They were written 70-100 years after the fact, even christian scholars will tell you that. I could go on for hours about the holes in you religion, but I think that'll do it for now.(reply to this comment)

From Mir Friday, August 22, 2003, 18:14 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! you crack me up Joe! You sound just like me before I became a Christian! ;-)(reply to this comment)

From Gar Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 17:51 (Agree/Disagree?) First of all the Bible has been proven as a legitimate source for History even by most no-Christian scholars. So if you want to refute the Bible with your own version of history then you are going to have to haggle with the scholars. Christianity in the pure sense, is a beleif in Jesus Christ and His teachings, not something someone perpetuated. You might be thinking of Catholisicm or the "church". But I don't have to be a part of a group to be a Christian. Thirdly, just because you don't understand something doesn't prove anything, but your own ignorance. e.g the whole purpose for the blood sacrifice as atonement for sins. And by the way if you knew your Bible a little better you would see that God didn't "hang His son on the cross", it says he went willingly (He chose to for us). I could also go on for hours, and I think we would just be in a headlock. But the point is again that Christianity is just as legitimate as any other form of belief, including yours. Ps Jesus usually referred to God as our father when he was around other people as to include them. He also repeatedly said "My" father which is what caused the Jews to hate Him so. Here's one example: But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. (Whole Chapter: Matthew 10 In context: Matthew 10:32-34) (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Thursday, August 21, 2003, 20:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Lucky for me I saved my History 101 book. It has been proven as a "legitimate source for history" by many scholars. I will now bow before it and worship it as my new found religion. My agnostic eyes have now been opened! Wow, I just invented a religion and all it took was legitimate history!!! Now I know why so many other people invented religions, its so easy!!!!(reply to this comment)

From Gar Monday, August 25, 2003, 19:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey frmjoyish I just came accross this segmant from a speaker I heard recently re: people inventing God. Thought it might be of interest I'd be interested in your comments. Gar "Maybe you saw this piece. What anthropologist Robert Sussman of Washington University in St. Louis is suggesting is that religion is one of the lies society creates--one of the noble self-deceptions--to achieve personal well-being and social order. Science has exposed these myths, making, among other things, the Judeo-Christian ethic less convincing. His evidence for this last fact is that "paleontologists have overthrown the myths of creation." I can well imagine Christians reading this piece and shuddering as they face this attack on their faith that sounds so intelligent, so scientific. First of all, this particular attack is not new. Feuerbach was the first to suggest God was nothing but a psychological projection. Religion to him was a universal neurosis. Freud, Marx and Nietzsche all picked up the theme: God the imaginary "cosmic father" invented for our emotional protection, created in our image to comfort us, a phantom to fill our hollow places. Because some one, or some culture, might have a motive for fabricating religion doesn't mean that they have, in fact, invented it. It's an important concept to keep in mind when you're doing advocacy: an alternate explanation isn't a refutation. Because someone can come up with a purely human explanation why someone would believe in God doesn't refute God's existence at all. The strength of any argument should be based on its own merits. Secondly science has not made religion untenable. Quite the opposite. If paleontology has shown anything it is the inadequacy of evolution to explain the fossil record as we have it. I have another explanation for people's belief in God. I think it's an intuitive response. Now you can't show that on a Geiger counter or measure it in a test tube, but you can't put love or beauty in a test tube either. I'd say belief in God is a first principle because every person has a natural sense of His transcendence and every culture in the world is beating a tom-tom to someone "out there." In fact, you have to work at being an atheist. Sometimes that belief is expressed in subtle ways. Even Thomas Maugh, Times Science Writer and author of this article, shows his hand in the things he says. He makes reference to noble lies and altruistic behavior. But if religion is a myth then the values religion spawns are myth also, values like nobility (which has to do with moral qualities) and altruism (dealing with the moral dimensions of unselfishness) are myth also. This is underscored further by the fact that as the "myth" of religion vanishes, altruism declines and egotism becomes more prevalent. Maugh also cannot help avoiding the language of design when he talks about the natural realm: "The viceroy butterfly...is a delicacy for birds, but evolution has colored its wings to mimic the markings of the foul-tasting monarch butterfly, forcing the birds to think twice before attacking it." To say the coloring was accidental would be much more honest, but it would sound so ludicrous. Instead design and intent are invoked because it really looks like someone's behind the scenes making things happen. Ergo the term "mother nature." If we were to invent god, what would he be like? If left to ourselves to fashion a god of our choosing, would we create a god like the one in the Bible? A god formed by human hands would mirror human sensibilities. He would think and act, more or less, like we do. As our invention, his morality would reflect our desires. When we erred, he'd cluck his disapproval and then dismiss our frailties with an affectionate kids-will-be-kids shrug. After all, nobody's perfect. The curious thing about the God of the Bible is how unlike us He is. His wisdom confuses us; His purity confounds us. He makes moral demands we can't live up to, then threatens retribution if we don't obey. Instead of being at our summons, He defies manipulation. In His economy, the weak and humble prevail and the last become first. Did we invent that? Could we invent it? Is this the kind of god we would create if left to our own devices? Or have we seen the true God and trembled, closed our eyes, hid our faces and turned our backs?" (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, August 26, 2003, 00:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks, Gar, that was interesting! I've never heard it from that angle before! Whoever wrote this was obviously was making a concerted effort not to sound like a bible thumping religious fanatic! Towards the end just a little bit of that slipped out though! Guess he/she couldn't help it!!! Old habits die hard! :) However, science never set out to "expose" any religious myths, they just ended up as casualties do to certain natural observations being made and confirmed. Consequently, its not only the Judeo-Christian beliefs that are affected! There are many religious beliefs by many other religions that contradict scientific findings. Some sort of creation story, for example, is not unique to JudeoChristian religion. As far as the religious values, I've said before that morality as well as values are all relative to individual human societies. Since humans are social animals, there must be "rules of engagement", so to speak, that allow any large group of organisms to coexist together. This not unique to humans but can be seen in many species from chimps down to bacteria. As far as the butterflies, your author was describing something called "Batesian Mimicry". It is a technique used all over nature in an attempt to survive. It's pretty simple, the butterflies who looked more like the Monarch had a better survival rate since birds were more apt to leave them alone! This gave their genes a better chance at surviving! Its seen often in the larval stage (caterpillars) of butterflies and moths as well. Fish and other aquatic organisms also display this type of mimicry! As far as why I think humans invented or thought up religion its due to the fact that humans are so intelligent that once our physiological needs, food, clothes, shelter, protection from prdetors, etc.. were met, our brains still needed the mental stimulation involved in meeting those needs. Since we still had all the active pathways, synapses, axons, and neurons, they were put to use inventing such things as religion, culture, music, etc. Once again, we are not the only sucessful species to devote time and energy into pursuits not directly related to survival. Thanks again, as I really did find it interesting!!!! (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Thursday, August 21, 2003, 20:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Lucky for me I saved my History 101 book. It has been proven as a "legitimate source for history" by many scholars. I will now bow before it and worship it as my new found religion. My agnostic eyes have now been opened! Wow, I just invented a religion and all it took was legitimate history!!! Now I know why so many other people invented religions, its so easy!!!!(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 18:29 (Agree/Disagree?) While no serious historian would ever regard as fact the version of events recounted in the Bible (or any other ancient book for that matter), some of the events described have indeed been confirmed by other sources. This, however, does nothing to prove that any of the other alleged events, such as the virgin birth of Jesus, any of his miracles, or his resurrection, actually took place. How "willingly" did Jesus really go to the alleged cross? How come in the garden of Gethsemane he "prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. "? So he maybe was "willing" but it doesn't sound like his idea or something that he was really gung-ho about. And if YOU read YOUR Bible a little bit better, you would have found a much better reference for your claim that Jesus was the son of God - John 3:16! He refers to himself as God's "only begotten son." (You know you're in trouble in a debate when your opponent can argue your side better than you can) But even this doesn't prove that he really was the son of God - basically, all you've got so far is "Because he said so." By that logic I could be the son of God and you should be worshipping me. In any case, the concept of God's son dying to atone for our sins is ludicrous. I would understand if it was just an example of God's personal closeness or understanding of the human plight, but why does someone need to die in order for sins to be forgiven? If you piss me off, I simply choose whether or not to let it go. Someone dying has no effect on such a decision. And it's not a very benevolent act, is it, because you have to accept Christianity (or at the very least Christ) in order to benefit from this alleged amnesty. What about natives living out in butt fuck Egypt, who never even heard of "the Gospel" and had no other option but unbelief? Are they condemned to Hell simply for having the bad luck to be born into an area with no missionaries? In your religion, Ted Bundy could get into heaven if he prays and asks Jesus into his heart 2 minutes before he dies, but the Dalai Lama is going straight to hell for being a buddhist? How fucked up is that? (reply to this comment)

From question... Thursday, August 21, 2003, 11:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Not wanting to get in to this debate, I cannot help but wondering; if no serious historian would regard as fact events recounted in an ancient book...where do we get history from? Just asking.(reply to this comment)

From Friday, August 22, 2003, 01:03 (Agree/Disagree?) OK, if you want a proper answer you should take some appropriate college courses. My personal experience was that it took me a long time and prolonged exposure to understand how you grade (notice the word choice) information for robustness. But here's something to think about: You ask: "if no serious historian would regard as fact events recounted in an ancient book...where do we get history from? " So much of getting a proper answer lies in asking the right question, but I will try to limit my response to the question you asked instead of rewriting your question. Sometimes you can't conclude that events happened as recounted in an ancient book but you still can learn a heck of a lot of history from that book. For example, Homer's epics. We can't necessarily conclude that Odysseus was a real dude who had himself tied up against real sirens and got stuck between a real Scylla and a real Charybdis, while poor real Penelope wove and turned down her suitors year after year waiting for her husband to return home. Heck, we don't even know if Homer was an actual man who lived. And all those gods and godesses? But we can learn tons about the people who wrote and sang and oriented themselves with these mythological narratives. Another example is a trial. You may have heard of some trials where the defendant and the plaintiff (or prosecution) propound entirely different theories or narratives based on the same evidence. So evidence is evidence, the interesting question is, what is it evidence OF? What does it prove? Sometimes a whole group of people (jury) can't even decide what actually happened based on the available evidence! The fact that there is a famous song that says "somewhere over the rainbow" the land of Oz exists does not mean, just because the song was written and sung and heard over and over, that I can do things by clicking my red shoes or that there is an all-green city in the clouds.(reply to this comment)

From question... Friday, August 22, 2003, 08:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I was being sarcastic, not actually asking. My point was that because a lot of history actually DOES come from "ancient books" (you know, old books), I found it humorous to read that "no serious historian would regard as fact"...etc. It was just a blanket statement about ancient books, and put the way it was (although I totally understood the authors point) just sounded funny, that's all. Don't read too much into it, and certainly don't assume I have insufficient education and then condescendingly point me to "appropriate college courses" simply because I was making a joke. Obviously not a good one, but one bad choice of humor doesn't make me unintelligent.(reply to this comment)

From Friday, August 22, 2003, 18:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Who said anything about intelligence? I do not equate intelligence with education. Isn't intelligence kind of like a raw material, and education a process of working with the raw material? That's how I think of it anyway, two separate forces. Not all intelligent people are educated, some educated people are not so intelligent, etc. I also never intend condescenscion in pointing anybody toward appropriate college courses. I could be taking college courses all my life, and in many areas I could use being pointed to useful ones. Such as "How to not miss sarcasm on the internet 101." I apologize for missing the sarcasm in your post. Maybe that says something about my intelligence?? Or maybe I was just working too late. (reply to this comment)

From question.... Friday, August 22, 2003, 19:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Hee hee, I'm sorry, I must be tired too...:q I know you weren't questioning my intelligence, just the education bit. I just meant my humor was unintelligent. It's true that sometimes it's very hard to tell sarcasm when you're reading posts, because sarcasm--unless extremely obvious--is more in the tone that is spoken than in the actual wording. Maybe we could put disclaimers on our sarcastic posts, so that they won't be taken seriously...:D See, now I know I'm tired, I'm getting "foolish". (reply to this comment)

From Gar Thursday, August 21, 2003, 11:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Good question, I was wondering the same also. What I do know is that History cannot be proven scientifically. For example I cannot prove scientifically that Joey here went to school this morning, the only way of proving that is by asking him or people who saw him etc... So it is an interesting question.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Thursday, August 21, 2003, 21:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Please don't insult science with this simplicity!!!(reply to this comment)

From Gar Thursday, August 21, 2003, 21:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I do apologize, I was only trying to make a point.(reply to this comment)

From Gar Thursday, August 21, 2003, 09:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe H: There's a great book that goes through all of this, written by a former agnostic and author Josh McDowel, it's called "more than a carpenter". A great read, if anything it will help you know what Christians are using as an argument these days. I haven't read the whole thing but my wife has and said it was great. I don't think it talks about the issue of the exclusive salvation (only through Jesus) but there are other possible explanations for that. I grew up with (was brainwashed with) Bergs "Universal Reconciliation" theory, therefore I havn't ever beleived that if you die without recieving Jesus you go straight to hell. I still have some studying to do on this subject and will get back to you when I do. PS The Bible says "I and my Father are one" so it's not really so much a matter of sending His son to the cross as it is sending a part of himself, which is self sacraficial and proves "willingness". And by the way willingness by dictionary terms means: "ready to do something voluntarily: ready to do something without being forced." It doesn't say anything about having to be gung ho. Ofcourse He didn't want to suffer, who would? But He was "willing" to for our sakes.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 13:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey asshole, if you want to pick on agnostics, I'm right here, but Cultinvator never said anything about agnosticism or condemned organized religion. You're putting words in his mouth. Oh, and your opinion isn't very humble, and it certainly isn't "himble," which is a word that exists solely in your own imagination.(reply to this comment)

From Gar Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 15:03 (Agree/Disagree?) First of all I have no idea where I earned that name. Second, I'm not here to pick on anybody, not even agnostics. He said "You don't know no real shit fucker. No one knows everything, but at least we don't go around waving "the truth" as if we did." To me this is a form of agnosticism or relativism which is a belief system. But I guess you would know better so why not educate me. The one thing we all have in common on this site is that we have left TF, obviously we all have followed different "faiths" so to speak and we should respect each other in that. Now I think most of what he said was right until he got to the end and started preaching his "don't preach" sermon. (That’s contradictory) One last thought: This may sound prudish, but there are a few people on this site including yourself Joe H, that like to use strong and offensive language directed at people personally when trying to get your point across, that's fine, maybe that’s your style, but just a little tip for you, in my opinion all you are doing is taking away from your own credibility. PS. Re: my new word "himble" I do have a little Shakesphere in me thank you. (reply to this comment)

From snow-globe Saturday, August 23, 2003, 15:02 (Agree/Disagree?) arr.. shake-sphere meself(reply to this comment)

from Eaglebleeds Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 02:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I couldn't agree with you more Krisskiki. I'd hate to see my family raided or persecuted in any way cause they're sincere Christians. It's the ones in charge who need some action done on them. I do think though that most field members have turned a blind eye to the truth and even with the chance to find out they'd rather not know. Somewhere in this site someone explained the term missionary really good. TF isn't full of missionaries. I do agree that some are, but the majority are just like regular Christians that help others. Most in TF don't have access to reading material, so, all they're left with is Family publications. But if they knew the truth they'd go for the books and material written by good Christian people cause it's way advance over Family stuff. I also think anyone who's left and can't stop talking shit, hatred, past stories, etc... needs to move on. Telling it once maybe twice is fine but more then that is just feeling sorry for themselves. It isn't healthy and just brings a negative energy to this place. (reply to this comment)

from neezy Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes even the fucken Taliban has made some 'changes' in the last couple years. Those poor misunderstood cult members.. (reply to this comment)

From Take my word for it! Sunday, August 17, 2003, 04:55 (Agree/Disagree?) You've just proven that you're one of the idiots I was talking about! It's not a matter of 'poor misunderstood cult members' - rather of 'stupid uninformed opinions', such as your own! Incidentally, your own example shoots yourself in the foot! If you were to go by information on the Taliban from around 10-15 years ago, you would find that they were SUPPORTED by the US government because they were fighting against the Russian Communists - Afghanistan as a country was an entirely different dynamic. Now, if the US was still working on that old information they wouldn't have been able to defeat the Taliban - hey, they wouldn't even know that the Taliban were running the country! So, as I said before, get your head out of your arse, and find out what's happening NOW!(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, August 17, 2003, 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) While I'm sure someone on this site needed that little history lesson(speaking of 'finding out whats happening NOW'), I'm left wondering what the fuck you're talking about. I'm sorry my slightly vague analogy has caused you such mental distress.. You'll excuse me if I don't think up another for you, I've got a bullet lodged in my foot apparently..(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Sunday, August 17, 2003, 18:15 (Agree/Disagree?) If you would get your head out of TF's ass for a minute or two, you'd see that your Taliban analogy doesn't have a thing to do with what he's talking about! He could've used "KKK" instead of "Taliban" and it would've meant the same thing, just because a group changes its window dressing doesn't change the BS they're selling! (reply to this comment)

From Cultinvator Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 05:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I totally agree joyish, just from watching "Birth of a Nation" (Griffith) the attitude and backward mentality towards "outsiders" and how we alianate those who are not like us, is so close to family mentality in how they treat, "Systemites". It's pitiful! This segregation is so lame. It stinks not AIDS but isolationists. As if they could tell if someone has aids? I'd trust an Amsterdam prostitute more than a "sharing partner". At least they know what they're doing. (reply to this comment)

from hmm Friday, August 15, 2003 - 23:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for the viewpoint. I do not doubt that the Family has changed much since I left a while back. I have two questions on your statements and some comments. First, if, as you note "The Family is not as cohesive as you might think...the average field home is made up of 1 or 2 families & is lucky if they even get to sit down to dinner together, much less to "fellowship" with any other homes...There are no discussion boards or chat room, it is rarely updated...", how were you able to get a picture that you feel is so general and accurate so as to know so well what The Family "is like NOW" overall? Second, you state that "there are many posts that attack "The Family" with the hopes that kids get taken away & people thrown in jail." Would you please kindly direct me to any post that says that children should currently be taken away or anybody thrown in jail other than abusers and those who have commited criminal acts? I personally cannot recall reading such posts on this site. The guilty Family leadership would have us think that those demanding accountability want what you described, precisely so that nothing is done that would get to them, the leaders. I have seen the discussions on seeking justice on this site take an entirely different tack. We should not superimpose the TF leadership's party line on the actual words said here on the quest for justice. The world is much broader than what TF leaders paint, including well-targeted options for justice. You said "The reason why the cases against the Fam always fail is because of this very fact: the field homes that are raided are checked out & are found to be normal homes with no evidence of any abuse, whereas if Mama's home for example, had been the one raided, and her children taken away, the prosecution would probably have won." I disagree, personally am convinced that back when so few were talking, Mama's home would have gotten on the hook as well. I think in the early 90's they would have been "found to be a normal home with no evidence of any abuse." There has been no precedent that I am aware of where people revealed the abuse they experienced before leaving the Family. Did they burn "Deceivers yet True" too, have you never read that? On a final note, I am glad that there is not the random unfair discipline and that schooling is better. I am also glad that you feel you are able to state that you have "not met" abusers, indicating that you have fortunately not witnessed anything you consider abuse. Do keep in mind that you may have met people who when it was the policy, did abuse children. The rationalization and denial level is so high about the abuses that were policy, that some of these people are quite brazen and unpenitent. Just as an FYI, I was abused by current high-profile Family members. Finally, if most of the abusers have left, that does nothing to change the responsibility of the current top leadership, which is the same as when the abuses were promoted, nor, might I add, of the departed abusers. (reply to this comment)

From hmm Friday, August 15, 2003, 23:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Correction: I believe Mama's home would have gotten *off* the hook as well.(reply to this comment)

From krisskiki Saturday, August 16, 2003, 06:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, not to get technical, but in the beginning I did write that this is what I have experienced personally & I have traveled around a lot, but of course not to every home in the world. In regards to the fellowship, there is a lot of personal contact between people who know each other well or who have lived together, of course, but I was talking about like through family sites, or through "The Family" oriented things. also I wrote that I haven't seen any kids being abused now, not that i thought it never happened. I actually lived in the home of someone who abused one of my friends when she was young & believe me I kept a good eye on the kids in that home, but I never saw any evidence to suggest he was still at it. also, when I left that home, i told the co's about some other things that he was doing that were anti-charter...if you can't get'm one way...I would love nothing more than to see all those creeps get what they deserved, and it's not that hard. If, as you say, you know of people still in TF that were abusers in the past, just make your own case & sue them. but there again, if you've left awhile ago, you might not know who's still in & who's not. High-Profile people leaving is not exactly well advertised. Also, I can't think of anyone in the family nowadays who is "high-profile"...let me know who you were talking about ok?(reply to this comment)

from porceleindoll Friday, August 15, 2003 - 21:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for the update on the present situation in the group. It is interesting to note that with all of the hype in the present GNs we have managed to get our hands on about how great the group is, how much progress is being made, the threats thrown out about not conforming to the world, not associating with 'backsliders', not sending your kids to public education facilities, not relying on the 'system' for your support, to practice in greater ways the Law of Love and Loving Jesus, and how you will fail to gain God's blessings if you don't, that, according to your accounts, the average CM Family member hardly seems to be following any of it. I wonder then, what is 'The Family' after all is said and done? They seem to have detoriated into some form of failed communism where the present members know no better way of life than how they have lived for the past 30 plus years, and yet have lost their original inspiration, and the new generation doesn't have a desire to carry on with the original direction of the movement. So what attraction does this group hold for people like your parents, friends or siblings, or the people still in the group to whom I yet have emotional ties? It is just another organization with a lot of skeletons in the closet, and people who are there simply because they don't know any other way to achieve their goals in life. And how can one choose to live a hypocritical lifestyle such as you described above? One reason I left the group was cause I no longer could reconcile myself with the group's beliefs and requirements, and rather than living a lie and deceiving myself, I chose to part ways and live my life according to what I believe correct. I couldn't follow the LJR, neither was the LOL acceptable, neither the low standard of education for my children, nor could I accept how leadership were handling and reacting to the departing youth. When it got to a point that I was no longer reading the GNs, and my conscience was kicking me for remaining in a group whose beliefs I no longer valued enough to die for, I decided to give it up and start over. I am most happy now that I can live my life according to what I believe is right and wrong and don't have to excuse or justify myself continually. What about present Family members? (reply to this comment)

From krisskiki Friday, August 15, 2003, 23:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I know exactly what you mean porcelein. Those are the exact same reasons I left. I didn't want to live a lie, because to me it was. There are many young people in the family who are just plain lazy or undecided & as long as they can still live with mom & dad & make money, but not pay for rent & stuff, they're happy..for now. I mean seriously, I know that many will cringe at that implication, that the family is a cushy life, but in the present family, an SGA can "raise funds" & travel the world basically on his own wherever he likes & then come back to mom & dad for free room & board when he's broke. I know I did when I was in the Fam. But once I decided what I wanted to do in life, I left & I think that many undecided yp will leave when they realise that they're gonna have to eventually do something with their lives. As far as my parents go, they are achieving their goals. Their goals are to raise their children & supply for them. That is the role they chose as parents. I believe that if they were to get ex-commed right now, life would continue on as normal because "The Family" is not the main focus of their daily lives, their family is.(reply to this comment)

from mex Friday, August 15, 2003 - 21:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I just read your article again and would also like to state that I think you are full of shit. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Saturday, August 16, 2003, 18:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you need to qualify that opinion mex. You may be right, but from my point of view, it's just your word against hers at this point.(reply to this comment)

from mex Friday, August 15, 2003 - 20:57 (Agree/Disagree?) "some sick burst of pedophilic inspiration" How about a LIFE TIME "of pedophilic inspiration." Most of the points you make are contradicted by the recent events in Brazil. My question to you is: what about Brazil? (reply to this comment)

From Take my word for it! Saturday, August 16, 2003, 09:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Some of you idiots need to take a word of advice from someone who KNOWS what the Family is really like NOW! No one is disputing your experiences in the past, nor are they saying that the Family is now perfect - or even 'good'. What they ARE saying is that it's DIFFERENT, and if you can't get that through your thick skulls then it's no wonder you're still chasing your tails with your head up your arse! In order to accomplish anything you need to have an accurate and CURRENT assessment of the situation, and you won't ever get that so long as you keep thinking you know better because you 'were in the Family' 12, 8, or however-many, years ago it was! The Family today is NOT the Family of 10 years ago, and it is most definitely NOT the Family of Love, or the Children of God! The fact that it has changed does not absolve them of past guilt, but it does mean that you need to rethink your approach - unless, of course, you want to find yourself down the same dead ends as so many have in the past when dealing with them.(reply to this comment)

From krisskiki Friday, August 15, 2003, 22:59 (Agree/Disagree?) If you know the full situation in Brasil, you'd know that they all got ex-commed for basically "being systemites". They we're kicked out for their FAILURE to comply with & apply the new wine/Gns into their lives, so mex...what about brazil?(reply to this comment)

From Failure Sunday, August 17, 2003, 16:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Krisskiki, I left the family shortly after the Conviction vs. Compromise series came out. I didn't leave because of CvsC – I was already on my way out – but that series certainly cemented my resolve to get out because that series was an ultimatum to Family members that in essence said, “this is the way you’ve got to live if you want to please the Lord and if you want to be a Family member” & there was little in those GNs I could agree with and even less that I was willing to follow. It’s interesting that you say that the Family of Brazil was excommunicated for basically being systemites. (I use the words “system” & “systemites” for the sake of continuity with this train of thought even though I personally do not agree with those terms). Going back to the CvsC, here are the points I remember most vividly, although with 5 huge GNs making up this series, I’m bound to have forgotten something: 1) The Family does not believe in or promote higher education. If a person wants anything more than a high school diploma they have to leave the Family to get it. 2) Putting your kids in system school is OUT. No punishments for doing it, but if your VSes come to visit and feel you aren’t indoctrinating your kids well enough to counter the effects of them going to school, it’s cause for being kicked out of the Family 3) Buying land, houses or any non-mobile personally property is OUT – unless it’s a big enough place for a Family home. Generally speaking, investments of any sort are highly frowned upon. 4) Working system jobs are OUT – unless you’re making a lot of money & giving most of it away. 5) People who cannot work together in harmony with other people/homes will get kicked out of the Family (ie, no disunity) 6) The Family will not be preparing to take care of its aging members. For any members to be worried about a pension or retiring is murmuring and the pension plan that God has provided is the Activated ministry. If you’re not getting out there and building your own church, it’s your own fault if you’re not taken care of in your old age. Please feel free to clarify if any of this has been updated in Family publications since. I’d be particularly interested to hear about changes in point number 6. In the entire two years prior to the CvsC series coming out, nearly every GN I can recall reading in some way was trying to get the general Family to conform to the standard that was being presented in the publications. I think Maria or Peter even talked about it somewhere – about how the reason they had to keep publishing these things was because they were trying to get the Family to live them, and if the Family didn’t follow the “new wine” it was no wonder their finances were in poor shape and that they were having “disunity” problems & their kids were not happy and fulfilled in the Family or that the parents were overwhelmed with all that there was to do. Always the solution in every single GN was “follow the letters, do what “the Lord” (we) says/say”. (Never mind the fact that 2 hours per day are required for word time, 1 hour for exercise, home schooling your kids is expected, you must push the activated ministry (which brings in paltry sums of money) and at the same time find a way to support your family.) The physical characteristics of how you are describing the Family are pretty much similar to how it seemed to me at the time (eg, "loose knit"). The further away you were from leadership's prying eye, the easier it was to do whatever you wanted, and as long as you managed to get to a place where you could raise funds, then you were set. But that’s not the way Family leadership wanted it. Family leadership kept trying to get everyone to knuckle under and live the standard presented in the GNs. The GNs were about doing it THEIR WAY. The only way they could physically force each individual Family member to obey would be to rescind the Charter; so instead, they keep on pumping out the propaganda. It finally came to a head with the CvsC series – the final ultimatum before people started getting kicked out. So my question to you is: WHY BRAZIL. If everyone in the Family is living the way you describe – which basically amounts to not following the “new wine” & simply picking and choosing as they please, why not excommunicate the whole damn lot of them. WHY Brazil in particular? Tea posted in extremely poignant article on this topic titled “Cooked Your Own Goose” Unless you were actually involved in the decision making process of excommunicating Brazil, don’t bother answering, these are rhetorical questions. Family leadership does not trust Family members enough to tell them whole truth about anything & I’m sure Brazil is no exception. But that’s a different topic and another can of worms. I agree with you when you say that people who left the Family 8, 10, 12 years ago need to realize that what goes on in the Homes isn’t the way it used to be. But that doesn’t mean that the creeps running the joint have changed or that their views have changed. And again, if the Family is really the way you say it is and if Brazil really got excommed for "failure to comply with and apply the new wine/Gns into their lives" most of the rest of the Family should get it pretty soon too.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, August 16, 2003, 05:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Hate to break it to you, dear, apparently you're a "systemite" now too (damn, I though even cult members stopped using that word years ago)!(reply to this comment)

From krisskiki Saturday, August 16, 2003, 05:54 (Agree/Disagree?) wolf, i only used that word..with " "'s on it anyway...so I didn't have to write a huge list of all what they were doing. I think most people got the point?(reply to this comment)

From mex Friday, August 15, 2003, 23:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Holy fucking shit, are you for real? I wish you the best Krisskiki.(reply to this comment)

From Gar Sunday, August 17, 2003, 13:31 (Agree/Disagree?) some people on this site have some major sticks up their ass's!(reply to this comment)