|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : The Trailer Park
|
About The Trailer Park:
This section is for comments that get a little carried
away. When comments become flames, they are transferred
to this area. If you wish to continue the threads posted
here, feel free, but the content will stay in the Trailer
Park.
(More on the Trailer Park)
|
Setting the Record Straight – The Lack of “Professionalism” in Daniel’s Post | from Claire - July 12, 2002
accessed 5078 times This Article is not in the Trailer Park. Go To Article |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Someome who's met your victims
August 18, 2002 - This comment is in the main site
| from cm
July 20, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | | | |  From *******
Monday, July 22, 2002, 11:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well at least ALMOST all (ie: as much as I feel led to). I reserve the right to withold certain of my opinions for a later more circumspect opportunity.
As much as I enjoy sitting here discussing all these lovely things with all you lovely people, I do have a life to live as well, as no doubt you all have as well, so must defer this discussion to a later date!
Sincerely, ******* (reply to this comment) |
| | from *******
July 19, 2002 - 10:49
I think I might have to continue with some of my replies a little bit later as this is quite mentally & even physically exhausting (seeing as I am only one, & there's quite a few of you)! I'm going to the park for a little while before work! (To JonnyWalker: In reply to your question, I work afternoons & evenings, for now, at 'Pizza hut' & am waiting for an interview on thursday for a second job as an agent for a sort of advertising company that is contracted by different companies to promote their products by canvasing & seeking customers to actively sign-up for their goods or services! I have over the last few years worked at a myriad of different jobs including farm hand, bar attendant, a short stint in 'McDonalds' (I hated it!), door-to-door salesman, packer, Customer Assistant & Supervisor in a Cinema, delivery driver, & porter! I'm studying for a Bus/Coach drivers licence & in between I'd like to do a few missionary trips if it works out! As far as more kids goes, "The future is as bright as the Unfailing [we'll get to subject of changable & unchangable stuff later, for the benefit of the fellow who brought up the subject!] Promises of the Never-failing God!" And I'm sure if I "walk up-rightly before Him He won't withold any good thing from me" (to paraphrase a Bible Scripture), not even a few more kids!
(reply to this comment) | From neez
Saturday, July 20, 2002, 00:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
well there it is...
You really should memorise this small verse.. Quit while your ahead(at least in your own head).
This will help you in your fulfilling career of 'Door-to-Door salesman'(promoting retail products by canvassing - ha)
You must have sat down one day &(or perhaps while delivering me a pizza) used all the powers of your imagination to come up with that career choice..
So do you still slip them a heavenly poster or tape while your 'promoting' your latest magic carpet spot cleaner? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Anthony
Friday, July 19, 2002, 17:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
*******: if I can help people to realise (realize) [& to become dissatisfied with] the husks they've settled for…
I work afternoons & evenings, for now, at
'Pizza hut'
& am waiting for an interview on thursday (Thursday) for a
second job as an
agent for a sort of advertising company that is contracted by different companies to promote their products by canvasin (canvassing ) & seeking customers to actively sign-up for their goods or services!
I have over the last few years worked at a myriad of different jobs including
farm hand,
bar attendant,
a short stint in
'McDonalds' (I hated it!),
door-to-door salesman,
packer,
Customer Assistant & Supervisor in a Cinema,
delivery driver, &
porter! I'm studying for a
Bus/Coach drivers licence (license) & in between I'd like to do a
few missionary trips if it works out!
Anthony: Did someone say “husks”? LOL!
Regards,
Anthony
(reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Saturday, July 20, 2002, 06:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
"To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life & peace!" Need I say that the HUSKS (which by the way is from a parable [which may have actaully happened--we don't know] that Jesus used to illustrate a point!) is refering to spiritual values (if they were at all even present in the first place & not just a sham that was successfully [or even not very successfully] held up for many years as a Family member) being traded in for what appears to be "financial security", which may seem to some people to be something that will LAST, but WON'T. The "worldly fashion" (2 Cor 10:2 RSV) of this world passes away, & the values held dear by many aren't held dear for ever. Doing humble mundane tasks is not the same as selling out to the system (quite the opposite infact--it helps me to be able to earn a living for myself & family [which IS a scriptural thing to do by the way; it's up to each person as to what they particulary choose to do] while at the same time not getting bogged down either with the cares of this world or spending a whole lot of time studying something I'm not interested in, wouldn't enjoy doing, & would probably not be a very financially-sound venture in a recession-based economy, such as many financial forecasters [who haven't even read the Letters or much of the Bible] are predicting is looming on the global horizon) for the HUSKS of unsound & morally questionable values, & is useful for the purpose of keeping in touch with the realities of life. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Hunter
Friday, July 19, 2002, 17:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
You've got to be kidding me. You've all been spending your time dealing with ******* who will all his 'theological expertice' and 'intelegence' not only works at the most respected establishments such as pizza hut, McDonalds, as a farm hand (ha), door-to-door salesman -- I can't help but laugh repeating his career history -- If he had any aspirations for his life he would have invested some of his time in learning an expertice beyond that which provides minimum wage. Wait, I stand corrected, he did say he is aspiring to be a coach driver, wtf. What a load of crap, "the future is as bright as the ...$#* (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Saturday, July 20, 2002, 07:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Even Joseph, whom some say is the only guy in the bible (besides Jesus of-course) about whom there is no recorded mistake mentioned (I've never checked that one up personally--never really interested me), spent years in humility training as a slave before it was time for the Lord to use Him! Well, if someone as "spotless" as he (& many other great "spotted" men of the bible, ie: Moses ["Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant"--Heb.3:5], Daniel [although it does say of him that he was chosen amongst those "in whom was no blemish"-Dan. 1:4],) had to spend time serving other people, before they could be used by the Lord, then surely someone as "inherantly flawed" as I (who has a desire to be found useful to the Lord in some small capacity, however He may see fit to use me) could also spend his time "serving others" in a sense, until such a time as the Lord may see fit to bless me with a ministry of service to Him, out on the mission field or where ever He needs me. There's no shame in that. Dad has often said (& I believe him) that God looks at things very differently than man does & what is wisdom to man may often be foolishness to God & he often takes the "weak" & "foolish" & "despised" to bring to nought the things that think they are "wise" or "strong", or the ones who think they are something a whole lot bigger than God really seees them to be! (No reference to persons living or dead, or to present company, is intended or should be inferred!) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Hunter
Tuesday, July 23, 2002, 00:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I regard the bible -- excuse me, portions of the bible -- as good literature. That's all. To clairify this, the work of Doctor Zeus (a true genius) I hold in higher regard.
This endless quoting does nothing more than bore me, furthermore it reminds me the days when I would do the same as you. That is until I realized that there was something called objectivism. That is understanding all sides before coming to a conclusion. Why don't you start going to school, or at least pick up a good book on the subject. Try Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". It's a good place to start. I would spare yourself the humiliation of someday realizing all that you've been insisting upon is one opinion of which there are countless others.
Religion is a Faith, this is something which one chooses to believe, the bible is the moral source, the ideology of one family of faiths, christianity, orthodox, etc.., not to forget many religious sects (not in the bad sense of the word). What people are arguing here is not against a religion but the imoral acts of indiviuals which were done under the disguise of religion. I hope you will come to understand this as many here have. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Trent
July 19, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | from Alf
July 18, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | from thepersoniamnow
July 15, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | from JohnnieWalker
July 15, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | | | | From *******
Monday, July 15, 2002, 10:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Who called you "apostates" or "balck sheep"??!! Do you think you might just be conjuring up those phrases, applying them to yourselves, then attributing their origin to the Family in a desperate attempt to conjure up sympathy for yourselves, which it seems you are all too ready to give receive, even if it comes from yourself???!!! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Lauren
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 06:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let me see if I get this straight? All the blah, blah, blah, rhetoric and throwing around of big words by Mr/Ms. ****** is in result to these statements by Mr. Walker:
“Is it because of their sincere interest in what we "apostates" have to say, or is it their immortal urge to be in control and know what's going on?” and “I know they might not have time for us "black sheep", but it could be a new ministry for someone.”
Mr./Ms. ***** (whom I shall now refer to as “Nameless”) retorted with: “Who called you "apostates" or "balck sheep"??!! Do you think you might just be conjuring up those phrases, applying them to yourselves, then attributing their origin to the Family in a desperate attempt to conjure up sympathy for yourselves, which it seems you are all too ready to give receive, even if it comes from yourself???!!!”
Jules did a pretty good job in answering Nameless and showing Nameless where “we” would get the idea that we had been called “apostates”. (note to Nameless: “Black sheep” is a gentle & kind synonym for “apostates”). But Nameless was not satisfied with that response and threw around a bunch of rhetoric, pablum and verbiage.
Nameless, if you need it spelled out to you ever so clearly – such as with a first grader just learning to read – let me quote here for you something which you should have already read. This comes from the Family’s own Grapevine publication in response to a letter circulated by a Family member. (I emphasise the point that it was this is in response to a Family member. I do this to note the fact that you can be an apostate even while in the Family if you try to dig down to the truth of what’s going on. Thus Mr. Walker is perfectly justified in using the terms “apostate” and “black sheep” to define what Family leadership truly thinks of those that have broken away from thinking and following the party line of crap.)
I quote from the Grapevine, “This e-mail file is quite draining, as you have to wade through quite a bit of material from apostates' accusations, which is never inspiring.”
I strongly suggest you learn how to think before you attempt to write like a thinker.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 07:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
You can call yourselves anything you like! I'm just suggesting that your presentation of the facts (again I say that I haven't heard too many "facts here, but rather gossip--see the "weekly poll" opposite to make my point-- & hype, & suggestions of writings being taken as practice [if that's the case then the Bible should be outlawed for propogating human sacrifice, cannibalism & a host of other "distasteful" practices] & hate-mail) may be somewhat distorted by your own perception of events that either did occur or are supposed to have occured or of what people mean or don't mean in what they've said! You've been verbally attacking the Family from almost every angle; well, didn't you know that it's a human reaction to defend yourself when attacked, either verbally or otherwise?! I've put a few suggestions & comments on this web-site which are different from the main stream views being voiced on this web-site (I'm sorry, is that a crime? If so then you're guilty of disallowing the voice of dissension, which you accuse the Family of doing) & I haven't been attacking anyone (again check your reading comprehension if you don't believe me). To the contrary I even commented that I hoped so & so wouldn't be offended by my comments & opinions & said "God bless"; to which I was hostily replied to "don't bless me! I don't need it!" Does that sound like a rational reply to you? Or the hysterical lashings out of someone who seems bent on venting anger! That's very foolish, I think! Evil? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Trent
Friday, July 19, 2002, 07:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
So *******, or should I call you Ellipsis(An omission from a sentence or word), or do you see yourself as the 7 Stars of Heaven. Anyway something "is" missing or omitted in your logic and your need for "facts". But a man of understanding can draw out wisdom from many words/heart and in the multitude of words there is sin probably. You know these things already in any case. I mean to say a lot can be garnered and learned from words, you know? Facts are so changeable aren't they? Like the Endtime and Prophecies. Are they facts? Fictions? Theories of the future? Snowman? Goddesses? Reality. Happiness. Money. Oh well.
You do have a fixation on attacking though, if I do say so. Thrust and parry, attack attack attack. You should then understand that leaving one life (like the Emperor Moth:check your MoP on that one) and starting another requires a fight. To break out of the cocoon is a fight.
I am all for the Family defending itself-at least that is one thing that could be called normal and not against 'natural affection' like so much that we learned in the cult.
Finally though, I am glad to say that once out of the cult/cocoon--it is often smooth sailing, dear *******. As iron sharpenth iron and all that you know? So Thanks Ellipsis, or can I just call you Sister Lips El-Seven for short? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From *******
Saturday, July 20, 2002, 07:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm sorry if you've been having nonsensical fictional visions that have to "be believed to be received"! I would offer to pray for you if you wanted prayer, but I realise that it would be presumptious of me to suggest that. I can therefore only recomend you go see your resident "witch-doctor" (or "legion" as he seems to prefer to be called!) to see if he can brew you up some potion that will help take these frightful occurances out of your head, & give you the peace you may be seeking!
PS. Let me know if you actually DO need prayer for anything & I'll consider taking the matter up with the Lord.
Sincerely, ******* (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Friday, July 19, 2002, 07:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think I've already stated somewhere why I "Ellipsed" to use my name here, & as far as the "seven stars", please see my response to JonnyWalker on the subject. As far as what you can call me I quote from one of the Letters somewhere "you can call me whatever you like, as long as God calls me!" I think you may understand now why I declined to use my real name. Sometimes, in order to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of having to face the fact (we'll get to discussing "facts" in a minute) that one might not be 100% correct in the comfortable assumptions (supplied by blissfully ignorant arrogance, either concious or subconsciencious) he or she is using to try to stir up malignment against a particular party, the mediocre mind often resorts to "name-calling", under-handed (known in boxing as 'below-the-belt") retorts, in a desperate effort to try to indimdate the one pointing out these facts to shield themselves from the potential embaressment to themselves for having being found in such a "compromising" position as to be falsely stirring up hatred or blind (I've read that word being used in reference to "blind-belief", but antagonism can be just as much or more so!) antagonism!
There are changeable & there are unchangeable facts. For example, the fact that I like banana shake is a fact now, but may not be a fact twenty (or even less) years from now! Genenrally the "things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are unseen are eternal"! To be continued on a mo.......! (reply to this comment) |
| | From cm
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 17:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
*******, Your foundational kvetch seems to be the deficiency of veritable "proof" of COG abuse on this site. This being a web site and not a court of law, I am not sure what you expect to see. Does the ever gracious Jules need to add a section for "traumatic testimonies" of life in Shangri-la? Would this fulfill your avarice for "proof"? Or would you continue to dismiss the claims as "histerical ventings."
I could if you like offer some examples that might silence your cries for "proof."
1. I could scan and e-mail you a picture of myself at two years of age signing on the street corners of Puerto Rico with a open guitar case in hopes of feeding my parents. While this does not seem to a grossly inhumane act, it does violate nuemerous child labor laws (both American and international).
2. I watched as a member of this web site was beaten (and I do mean beaten) with a paddle, daily for about two weeks for having "doubts" in Mexico by "King" Arthur, Marc (Lonnie Davis) and Steven Piper (Terrance Patrick McLure). If you so desire I could find at least six members of our JETT group to verify this claim.
3. I watched as my little sister(10) was put on silence restiction (by the same individuals) for 3 months, which included duct tape on her mouth, daily spankings (in an effort to beat the demons out of her) and intensive labor for complaining about her teachers. My younger brother (8 at the time) was subject to the same treatment for a shorter period of time but no less traumatic.
If this is what you are looking for, you will not be disappionted. I am sure that when the time comes to present a case against the group, hundreds (if not thousands) of other volunteers will rise to testify. It would be however both unwise and unnecessary to post these examples on this site. (All things are possible but what is necessary is a master hypothesis--Nietzche).
In regards to your claim that a court of law will never convict an entire organization, you need only look to the examples of the cases against the Catholic Church, the Moonies, the Hare Krishnas and the Church of the Latter Day Saints to note that that is simply not the case. Individuals may be prosecuted and organizations can be driven to folding as a result of successful claims for reparations.
While you may be correct in assuming that the COG is not exactly "rolling in the dough" this does not stop a court from ordering them to pay a fine and effectively shutting down operations. I would not mind seeing a college loan or two of mine be paid by Zerby, I doubt that it will happen. But I do not think that this would be the primary purpose of the case against the COG--many of us still have family members who are minors who continue to be abused by the group. While the cases of sexual abuse may have diminished, other abuses still abound. Court cases in England, Argentina, France and Spain have drastically altered the actions of these abusers. Who knows how many more young girls (and boys) would have been sexually, emotionally and physically abused if these cases had not been filed??
Last point to cover, you ask why we choose to engage in diatribes against the COG and not the other abundance of "evils" in this world? I tell you why. Firstly, it is because this an evil that we are intimately familiar with. I have no knowledge of the secret workings of the drug cartels or the drug lords of Africa. Instead, I know about the evils of the COG. Secondly, it is a personal issue because I know people being damaged by the cult. It makes it easier to be passionate about.
Most of us lead successful lives as students, mothers/fathers, professional and nonprofessional laborers not because of our experiences but in spite of them. We choose to come to this site because it is an opportunity to meet with those who have had similar (if not identical) experiences and perhaps, if we are lucky, help those we care about enjoy less traumatic childhoods as a result of our efforts. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 08:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
"it's a human reaction to defend yourself when attacked"
Have you stopped to put yourself in the shoes of those who post here. There are a lot of built up feelings and emotions being expressed here which would have never been tolerated in the Family. Think of it as a rubberband fastened at one point and pulled at the other. When it's been stretched to capacity and is released, it tends to shoot in the direction opposite to that from which it was stretched. Eventually, when all its kinetic energy is released, it reurns to its normal state. A lot of the ex's are just here to "let off steam". If you get in the way you might get hurt or even attacked.
See, that's what the whole "moving on" concept is about. You have to vent your frustrations (gossip, exaggerations included) to get it out of your system. Once you have, you eventually come back to your natural state and can put things in their proper perspective. I believe that there are enough level-headed people on this site who know what is hear-say and what isn't. It was an awfully kind gesture of you to enlighten us to the fact but it is also extremely closed-minded of you to immediately label all of the content here as gossip and hear-say. (And do keep in mind that the weekly poll you refer to was posted by the same person who claims to be the Daniel of "The Professionals" fame.)
One thing of which you might want to take note, is that many people who are still 110%ers in the Family acknowledge that many of the events described here did occur in the way described by the 'victim', if you will. So I doubt that most of this is hype and/or fabrication.
"you're guilty of disallowing the voice of dissension"
If "we" were indeed guilty of that, you would have been blocked from posting here a long time ago. Count yourself lucky. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 04:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
The only thing I count my self "lucky" of is that I belong to the Lord! Regarding blocking; I'd like to see you try! I hardly ever use the same computer & there are a myriad of ways to get around almost any block! And even if you do block me, ask me if I give a R's A! So don't patronise me or pretend to be doing me any great big favours, OK??!! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From *******
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 06:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you for the your little prognosis of the "facts-of-life"! I'm not sure who LJR is, but taking the same line (albeit reluctantly, having no desire to delve into your private life as it seems you've felt free enough to delve into mine) that scientific classification could almost certainly apply to yourself as well!
PS. I'm not interested in hearing whether I'm right or wrong in that statement! It's none of my business, just as mine is none of yours! (reply to this comment) |
| | From ruffneck
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 10:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
where, (if anywhere) did you learn English anyway? What prognostication did you see in my posts, dear ********? The dictionary defines "prognosis" as a) prediction of the probable course and outcome of a disease. b)The likelihood of recovery from a disease.
Now I will prognosticate: the likelihood of your recovery from this disease of the mind commonly termed "blind belief" is none. Sorry to say it, but without drastic action, your case is terminal. As for being a wanker myself, I don't see any issue here either way. At least I don't preach that "wanking" brings one closer to "Jesus". And LJR stands for (the) Loving Jesus Revolution. -You really ought to reseach what you defend. Or don't you defend this part of Family beliefs? And if you didn't want people to bring up your sex life (or lack thereof?) perhaps you shouldn't have started the sexually-charged name calling (specifically "wanker").
later loser. (*******)
ruff (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 11:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Poor ruffneck! He seems to think that everyone has to fall into nice little neat catagories of what a Family member is or is not, & what a Family member believes (blindly or wide-eyedly) or does not! (Needless to remind you, I'm not a family member!)
Have I preached anything about wanking here?! Have I defended the LJR (as you've so neatly shrunk it down to) here in anyway, or even refered to it? I don't have to, nor does anybody else, & certainly not to you! Every person is blessed with the right of self determination (which some here are suggesting was in some way violated, yet you tell me what I really ought to do [ie: "research what I defend"]) as to what they do or do not believe & if they do to what extent they believe or practise it! What I do or do not believe is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! (please pardon the caps...I do that when I'm trying to help avoid anyone succumbing to the "diagnosis" [pardon me, THAT was the word I meant! I' ve never denied being among the "inherently flawed" human race, which we've discussed on this site!] of "reading MIS-comprehension" that I for one have found prevelant on this site! Again, if you read my post carefully, I wrote "We WOULD call you a 'wanker'"; I didn't necessarily directly call him a 'wanker', & it was in response to his drivel of nonesense! As you are the one who posted the definitions of "wanker", you would also know that there is a non-sexual definition as well (similar to 'jerk')!
Taking a bow before the curtain's down?! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 08:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Here's the thing. If you have a point to make, state it clearly. (ie: "I disagree with statement A, due to reasons B, C and D.") That's open debate. Name calling and rhetoric ("didn't you know...", "don't you think.." etc.) is immature, pointless and just makes you look silly. If you want people to take you seriously, then please try to articulate your opinions a bit more precisely.
Oh and get your own insults, the reading comprehension one is mine. :-) (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 08:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh sorry, did you mean that as an insult?? I didn't! I really meant it seriously! I'm sorry if I'm not being articulate enough to suit your tastes! I'm not trying to be drawn into "she said & therefore I will answer back with he said"..etc, etc. I'm simply trying to hold up a mirror or a sounding board to reflect how this stuff all sounds to an unbiased (when I say I'm unbiased it means that I don't believe in all one side being all right & all one side being all wrong except God's side!) relatively new-comer to this site! It seems to me that someone (or a whole lot of someones are trying to do an injustice to correct what they allege are injustices! And all I can say to that is "if you try to cleanse a blot with blotted fingers, you create a greater blurr!" (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 10:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
What, you mean like you're using your accusations of the Family to cower behind? Do you somehow have the mistaken idea that accusing someone else automatically absolves YOU of any wrong doing or sin? Have you sold your soul to the devil for a mess of pottage of his lies that somehow you'll be all taken care of if you manage to be successful Judases (really, how far does 30 pieces of silver go these days?)! He'll spit you out when he's done with you, & even if he doesn't remember that "though hand join in hand (ie: even if everyone "works together" to sort things out & defend each other) yet shall not the wicked be unpunished"! And if you happen to be in the same bed with him, then you'll get it too! "Wherefore come out from among them & be ye seperate sayeth the Lord!" "That ye receive not of her Plagues" (That's a combination of two scriptures, for those who didn't notice!) (reply to this comment) |
| | From Trent
Friday, July 19, 2002, 07:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
The cult will also spit you out when it is done with you. Hey Jude! You will recognize the following. You really want to go toe to toe with scripture?
These be they who separate themselves,sensual, having not the Spirit. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Friday, July 19, 2002, 08:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm am amazed at your choice of scriptures! You couldn't have made it easier for me to answer you. It seems to me that you know & possibly relate to that scripture so well that I hardly need to say anything other than "Amen--You seem to have hit the nail (you DO know that I'm refering to that nail as being YOU [or at least those of you who are guilty of what's written in that passage---you all know yourselves better than I do]) on the head!" It seems like this problem is nothing new & has been around for thousands of years! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Trent
Saturday, July 20, 2002, 05:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know what? I just knew that would be your answer and it pleases me to no end to have it in print. I would talk and answer just like you once upon a time, but alas that was a fairy tale time when everything was a tale brought to me by fairies. The time came that I had to say good bye to the fairies and tales and educate myself. I am glad that you are so pleased with yourself too, there is so much evil in the world you know? (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Saturday, July 20, 2002, 07:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not going to bother asking you if the fairies & your "tale" ever had a chance to get closely acquainted! That would be besides the point, & possibly "below the belt", & I have no desire to stoop that low! I'm glad for your sake though that you seemed (at least as far as you're describing it) to have had a "fairytale" childhood! Sorry if the growing pains are getting to you! One of the prices of becoming a man! (Again, I'm assuming you are from your name--or at very least a boy, headed in that direction!) Hope that the evil that you've discovered to exist in the world isn't getting to you! If it is then just remember that someday (in the, I pray, not too distant future) "Righteousness shall cover the Earth as the waters cover the seas"! Hope you'll find peace until then, if that's what your seeking, & if not then I hope that it finds you!
Sincerely ******* (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From ruffneck
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 10:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jeez-louise *******, you sure are one "on fire" (brainwashed?)person. I can't wait until you come to your senses and leave all the way, instead of being a Fake Member who feels the need to act as an apologist. Tell me, *******, are you even a young person? Because just about everything you have posted sounds like the insane drivel of somebody who joined the cult willingly. Fess up! Oh, and please don't type in caps, it's extremely rude.
But lest you take this all the wrong way, I will finish up by thanking you ever so much for the service you are rendering us young people. "What service" you ask? Reminding every single one of us as to (at least one reason why) why we left the cult: self-righteous, berg-book-pounding hypocrites like yourself. As somebody else has already noted, by trying to "show the other side" you've done more damage to the cause of "reconciliation", and "moving on" than if you had just shut up and stayed offline. May I recommend that before you come to this site to harangue people about your pet beliefs, that you please masturbate and say the love words to Jesus, (like a good Family drone) and perhaps that will relieve the stress that causes such outbursts of literary wit such as "Where the hell is your's [sic](ie UP WHOSE ASS??!!)"
By the way, how's the whited sepulchre these days? Still full of dead men's bones? (pun intended)
bye peeps.
ruf (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From ruffneck
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 10:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27
Doesn't that sound like your pet cult, *******? Do you have anything quasi-intelligent to say today? - I didn't think so.
Grammar correction: And in your last post, there *are* (not *is*, *are*. In other words, no "there's") more exciting and rewarding professions.
I just wonder how you'd know? Is this based on years of work experience at a real (read: system) job, or are you just trying to be funny? Becuase if humour was your aim, you're about as funny as Bob Saget. - Just about as pathetic too. Oh well. Practice makes perfect. Your postings sure help with my sense of elitism too: (still trying to shake that cult influence) It's awful hard to consider oneself "stupid" after reading your semi-coherent ramblings. In fact, it makes one feel like a ruddy genius by comparison. So Keep Up The Good Work! You make us all feel better by the day. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Monday, July 15, 2002, 10:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not only is your punctuation evidence of a Family education, your reading comprehension seems to be as well.
From Claire in the above article: "Interestingly enough, the majority of angry comments that follow are based on the spurious paragraphs. I found that quite interesting, and in fact, fully in line with sociological research on apostasy" (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Monday, July 15, 2002, 10:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
That still doesn't answer my question! And your pokes at my punctuation still don't change the point i'm trying to bring out! read it agin & check your own reading comprehension!!! (Note the tripple exclamation marks?! That's so you can have an excuse to skirt around the issue & poke fun, without having to reply!) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 05:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think most of us here have enough respect for the 'voice of reason' to know not to laugh at it. What we are laughing at is the utter lack of reason in your posts so far. Blindly defending something that is flawed without taking time to examine the flaws and looking for ways to fix them, is nothing but utter folly.
You talk (write) to us as if we are all abhorently wrong and you are right. Ever stop and think that we're all just in the middle somewhere. If we can admit that we have made assumptions about the Family which were wrong, can you accept the fact that you have, too? That would be a good way to start if you want us to lend credence to anything you have to say. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 07:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Who's blindly defending anything? I'm simply trying to see if we can change down a gear & see things reasonably! Would you say that you are trying to fix flaws? I've only heard criticism & suggestions of prosecutions & retribution! And I never said you are all abhorently wrong! I'm sorry if you feel like you're in the middle somewhere, but I can't see anyone here "moving on" except to greater recriminations & more suffering (which is something you say that you're trying to avoid happening!)! Of-course anyone can make assumptions that are flawed, in fact just the fact that you make an assumption suggests flaw, by the fact that you have to make an assumption without knowing all the facts! I can of-course accept that the Family (which is made up of human beings, which by nature are inherently flawed, hence the need for salvation by someone un-flawed--Jesus)has been wrong at times (you may argue at many or all the times, but that wouldn't be fair--another assumation since you aren't everywhere or know everything, & a flaw is also subject to perspective & hence interpretation as to the flaws severity & the consequential damage caused)! But you're not going to fix the mistake by fixing the blame, & it seems to me that no-one is going to "move on" anywhere (if inded you really know where to "move on" to) while you're holding on to the past (you might say that that's a catch-phrase for those who want to want to cover up their "wrong doings" -To be continued.I've run out of characters (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 07:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Still skirting the real issue, huh. What's with you. Why do you have to harp on and pick apart little tiny words.
You ask, "Would you say that you are trying to fix flaws?" Yes, I would. And if you would care to browse around on this site a little more, I believe you would find that many attempt to do just that. Of course, much of what us "outsiders" want the Family to fix is just viewed as "malicious lies".
Try to keep in mind that all of us were once as sold out on the Family as you are now. All of us would have defended it in much the same way you are now. Most of the people on this site (which is not many when compared to the silent majority) left because we saw there was not much worth defending.
Tell us, "Nameless", why are you still in the Family. We will not accept the "Because-I-want-to-be", or "Because-it's-God's-Will-for-me" lines we would have rattled off. Give us just ONE GOOD REASON. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 08:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not! (Is that one good enough reason for you??!!) I still don't think that you're all right in what you're saying though! I don't like to see unfairness in any form, but why should the FAmily catch all the flack, when there are a host of other people in this world to whom you could trun your attention! Try taking up some noble cause & make a real difference in this sad ol' world of ours! Do you just pick on the Family because they're an easy target & they're Christians! I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot more evil people in this world, & those who've done a whole lot more diabolical crimes then you could ever accuse the Family of having committed! (Not to mention the fact of all the millions of people whom the Family has helped [I know that for a fact, 'cause I was among those helping with the Family in many places]) Is it fair to forget all the good that has been done & rake anyone over the coals for their human shortcomings or mistakes! Where's your Charity? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Trent
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 19:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
In reflection of our cult Family insular and isolated training we feel it is our duty to do good unto the house of God first. That's a Bible verse by the way. So before moving on to save the world it is necessary for us, me at least, to expose the unhealthy cult/psychological aspects to any who will listen. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Friday, July 19, 2002, 05:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ah! I see! You're trying to do GOOD unto the house of God (at least you've acknowledged the "house of God" part!)?! And here I was all the time thinking you were just accusing & trying to breath out retributions & the "reaping of whirlwinds" (you don't mind I borrow that from your post, do you Daniel?) to them! Forgive me, my mistake! OK, & how exactly are you proposing to do that? Are you suggesting a "let us do evil that good may come" kinda' solution? If so then I have to remind you that the "doing of evil" part, is usually accomplished by mortals. The "good may come" part is usually accomplished by the Lord! In other words, God is going to have to be forced to come through for them in an even greater way, which in turn will heap even greater blessings upon their heads! Nice job mate! Keep it up! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 07:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Continued....but you can't reasonably accept that any court is going to try a whole group together..do you? And how would you how to apportion blame? Legally how could you prove anything! If you're happier being out of the Family & say that by doing so you've gained some higher moral ground, then prove it! The greatest "revenge" (if indeed that is what you're looking for) is forgiveness, cause that puts you in a position where you can comfortably say "yes, I acknowledge that I've been wronged (albeit you most likely would never be able to say that you've never wronged anyone--I don't think there's a single human being on Earth who can honestly say that, except Jesus!), but I'm going to forgive (& that would suggest forgetting too!) & "move on" with my life. Anyone can injure someone; it takes supernatural help to forgive! It seems to me that there's so much more to life than getting "even", & if you recall that quip that says "an eye for an eye only makes everyone blind" you might realise that getting anyone legally charged or convicted would only would be an empty victory, 'cause it would only prove that you're as petty or as twisted as you claim they are, seeing as you've gone to so much trouble to get the "pleasure" of vengence. If you really think that they've done wrong, then you should also realise that vengance belongeth to the Lord! He will repay if there's any repayment to be made! And if there isn't then you'll all look like fools for your mountain from mole hills! (reply to this comment) |
| | From nobody_esq
Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 21:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nameless, I wanted to ignore you, but you really don't get it. In an earlier post, you used "shortcomings" and "mistakes" to characterize the things about the family which make the people here so angry. Now you impugn their desire for justice and perhaps punishment by saying "it would only prove that you're as petty or as twisted as you claim they are".
"Shortcomings" refer to personal weaknesses against which you are struggling. "Mistakes" describe something you do inadvertently, and rectify as soon as you realize what you've done. That doesn't include announcing that God "revealed" that your shortcomings and mistakes are his will for the human race.
The family is accused not of "mistakes" but of institutionalized, habitual cruelty, lust, slavery, brutality and sexual abuse, which they directed at their children and dressed up as being the will of God. And despite your blustering of the family lie, the evidence is overwhelming. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Trent
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 19:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
If a Christian(or upstanding cult member) has the luxury of holding 'vengence' so dear and close to their heart(knowing that the dear and Sweet Jesus Himself will kick some rebellious non-believers sweet-ass in the sweet, sweet bye and bye), should not apostates, x-members, pagans, non-Committed Christians also have that same right of vengence?
If their vengence should mean retribution and proper redress in this lifetime-the reality that should be obvious to most of us--What is wrong or unfair about that?--What is wrong with legal, temporal, real vengence now for these people?
You want your vengence-should not these people get their vengence too? (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Friday, July 19, 2002, 05:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you're familiar at all with the precepts of Christianity (sorry, did you say you used to be a Family member?!) & if you had read my post carefully you would have read the scripture "vengance belongeth to the Lord"! The main reason for that in my view is that humans can be flawed in their view of flaws & to their view of how those flaws should be rectified or the "damage" caused retributed for! That's why Jesus is the righteous Judge & "in Righteousness HE doth Judge & make war!" Two wrongs do NOT make a right & humans can, & very often DO get their facts & the interpretation of those facts WRONG! There's also the merciful side of the Lord & how a projected outcome would fit into HIS overall plan! You may try to "pop" someone at the wrong time not knowing that it may have a disasterous affect on the balance of nature delicately set up by the Lord (see the example of the "tares & the wheat" to prove my point)! Also, the Lord is abundant in mercy to those who repent, & gives people a lot of slack to hopefully bring them to repentance for those who wish & deserve it, that eventually he may be "sure when He judgeth", which is a whole lot more than can be said for most of man's justice! I'm seriously doubtful as to whether Family members have committed crimes that would warrant the "vengance" of God being poured out upon them! I'm not saying that there may not be certain things that would not warrant appologies; & if they're due then have patience, they will come here or THERE!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 07:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Vengance belongeth to the Lord" -- Truer words have never been spoken! Has it ever crossed your mind that the Lord might just use some ex-Family members as tools in His hand to bring about that vengeance?
Also, when someone does sue the Family, they won't be sueing "The Family" per se. They will be suing Maria, Peter and WS. So I wouldn't take too much comfort in the assumption that there is safety in numbers.
You're basing your idea of vengence on the "persecution" and raids which the Family has suffered in the past. Do you honestly think that any ex-member who takes "The Family" to court would want to see their brothers and sisters who are still in get taken away from their parents. Come on! What do you take us for?
"Nameless", you know what amuses me about your posts? The fact that I see myself 3 or 4 years ago being parrotted by you now. I can see myself as having said the exact same thing. I would have reacted in precisely the same manner.
Just a little point of interest: if you register yourself, there's no character limit. :) (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 08:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
So you consider yourselves the "razors that are hired" (quoting a bible scripture in reference to the Babylonians [I think it was them] who sacked Jerusalem) do you? I would just like to remind you what eventually happened to them after they had fulfilled God's purpose! God turned around & let them have it for their cruelty to His people! So just remember what Paul says in Romans "Thinkest thou this, whosoever thou art that judgeth & doeth the same (or have done the same!) that thou shalt escape the judgements of God; or despiseth thou the forbearance of God not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance, but after thy hard & impenitent heart treasuest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath & revelation of the RIGHTEOUS judge, who shall render unto everyman according to his work (another suggestion there that it's the Lord's job to do the judging or rewarding to both good & evil, not you!)! (Forgive me if that's not word for word. I don't have my Bible on me & am repeating it from memory) And how do you know what I'm basing my idea of vengance on?? Huh? I don't take you for anything! Another example to me of your assumations! If that's anything to go by, then I have serious doubts as to the validity of many of your claims, seeing as I've already been falsely accused in such a short time! And if you see in me yourself 3-4 years ago then don't you think you should be a bit more charitable to "yourself"??!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 09:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
"So you consider yourselves the "razors that are hired" ... do you?"
I'm not saying we consider ourselves that, I'm saying that it probably never crossed your mind. Whether God chooses to break His tools after He uses them is not something for mortals to judge. If He does, so be it, but at least the Lord had his vengeance.
By the way, take those verses you quoted and put them in context of what Maria and Berg have done to Family members. I'm sure you'll see where a lot of us are coming from.
"...Another example to me of your assumations"
Yes, thank you for the confirmation. It was indeed an assumation, which as you yourself pointed out, is liable to error. If I wanted what I said to sound like it was an established fact, I would have worded the assumption in a different fashion. There is no shame in making an assumption which turns out to be wrong.
"don't you think you should be a bit more charitable to "yourself"??!!"
You know, there are more symbols in punctuation than just "??!!". But that's besides the point. I am being charitible to myself by comparing my past self to you. I don't see you as a vile person (and as such I am not comparing myself to a vile person); just a fellow human with a different opinion, that's all. In your situation I might have even resorted to much more name calling than you have, all in the name of "RIGHTEOUS" anger, of course.
Since you're not in the Family anymore, let me ask you this: "Why did you leave??!!(<-- sorry, couldn't help it :P )". If the Family is such a great place to be, then do you feel you are admitting faliure when you say you are no longer part of it? Why do you defend it so if you are not one of them? Why do you not tollerate opposition to the Family if you yourself are not convinced enough of it to be a member? I'm interested to know. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 10:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
So even if you're not "razors" you're still pretty confident that you're tools in God's hand (what kinda tool would that make you & to what purpose...an axe perhaps...you certainly seem to have one to grind! Perhaps once you're done, & only once you're done grinding, it might look a bit more like a scalpel with which you might be able to perform a more accurate precise operation--that is if you can get the beams out of your eyes as well to be able to see clearly to perform that operation! Don't forget that sanitation is an imperitive part of any operation so as to limit the spread of infection!), are you? If I were you I'd make doubly sure I was definately a tool in God's hand (By the way, if your a tool in His hand then wouldn't you have access to his arsenal, & you wouldn't have to resort to man's forms of justice! Strike'm with lightning if you can...or perhaps you could smite them with boils or some other plagues to get across your point! "Call louder, he is a god, peradventure he is sleeping & must be awakened, or he is gone on a journey, or perhaps he's just in a unco-operative mood!" Watch out for the lances, man they can really hurt!) or you might find yourself in someone else's hand (like Jason was with the rabble he'd stirred up against Paul, when they found out that the judge didn't think they had a case & dismissed it, they turned on him & beat him up!--"Ouch! That's gotta hurt!" [Courtesy of "Vanne Damme"! Thanks!])
As to why I'm not in the Family..To be cont'd. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 11:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
I left the Family (as in the reporting Family) because the Lord had different things for me to go through in my life, & I needed to find my feet & get some things sorted in my own personal life before I could be much use to anyone! That doesn't mean that the Lord or I abandoned each other! Even though at the time I felt that the Lord had abandoned me, "farther along we've understood why"! Changes are good for all of us & just because the Family's great doesn't mean that everyone's supposed to be in it full time! The Lord has a different place for eveyone (if you claim to be tools in God's hands then you should know that!) & for some of us it's to be willing to march into hell for a Heavenly Cause! Is that something any of you would know anything about? What about to bear with unbearable sorrow! Christians through out history have gone through much worse experiences than anything any of you could have gone through (I wonder what it feels like between the Incisors of a "Big Cat", or in the fire's of a "purifying" stake!...Come on now, you didn't really have it that bad did ya'?!)! Life offers two alternatives, Crucifiction with Christ, or self-destruction wtihout Him! I'm sorry if any of you felt you had to deny yourselves or take up crosses that you didn't feel were your own..(they that bear the cross shall wear the crown [if you're faithful unto death!]), but why don't you just live with it or get on & actually "move on"! But this half way in-between isn't gonna help anyone! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 11:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Who are you preaching to? I can respect your choice. Why do you preach to us and do not respect ours? Your posts (these and all the other one's you've posted as "MagicGreenPants") are full of rantings such as would befit someone who is undergoing emotional turbulence. Do you need prayer?
"just because the Family's great doesn't mean that everyone's supposed to be in it full time"
Yes. It might indeed be the cocoon we've had to squeeze through in order to become the beautiful butterflies we are now. Wouldn't you agree?
Magic, (mind if I call you that?) why do you try to make us look small and insignificant? Why can you not accept the decisions we have made in our life and the paths we choose to take? Why do you constantly have to place yourself in the position of being the teacher and us the ignorant pupils (my words, not your's). Why do you talk (write) to us as if we are errant little children who are playing with fire and don't know it (agian, my words).
Believe me, it may take some time, but we will be avenged, whether by God or by man.
As far as "calling fire from heaven" goes: why doesn't the Lord give those powers to the Family when they are involved in court cases? Why has the Lord allowed them to lose some cases? Why did they only receive a favourable ruling in Pearl's case because thy changed a few rules in the Family?
Never mind spewing fire, why doesn't the Lord annoint you right now with some of that divine clarity so we can see your point clearly? We'd love to hear the un-adulterated truth! Why doesn't the Lord punch through with that, right now? Why don't you ask the Lord for a prophecy for us? I'd listen to what you the Lord has say, if it is really him speaking and not you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 14:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know who magic green pants is! Is he magic shirt's nether half?! Would you really listen to what the Lord has to say if it really was him speaking & not me? How would you know the dif?! Does "Uncle Alf" (some Pseudo "prophet" you seem to have given a spot on your show to) really speak what the Lord has to say?! If so then he should be enough of a voice for you! If you want to hear the un-adultarated truth refer to the 'Good Book' (more commonly known as the Bible) for satisfaction in this regard! As to whether you're beautiful butterflies now or not, I don't know (I can't see you from here), but no doubt you've got potential! Just remember when you spread those lovely wings where you inherited them from! As for fire from heaven...Did I say anything about that? I believe I mentioned "lightning" & "boils", that's all! (Again to steal one of Jules' "insults": please check your reading comprehension!) Maybe the reason you can't see the "point" clearly is because you're looking for everything to be spelled out in black & white so you don't have to excercise your own discernment or wisdom to apply principles from the Word for yourselves! Relations with people is not an exact science, & there's no exact textbook that I know of that covers every single situation or aspect, or gives advice on every problem you'll ever come up against (& life is full of them, that's why we aren't to take any thought for the morrow, 'cause today's problem's are enough for today). 2 B cont'd..... (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 14:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
So like Maria says in one of her writings (or letters, if you don't mind me using that phrase) we're gonna have to learn how to handle people if we're gonna be ruling the world! (or words to that affect--see DB2) Whare's your world vision gone? Have you settled for a mess of pottage & denied your birthright ( that's not just verbal diatribes)! And if you plan to do something more with your lives than spend the rest of it piddling around with pettines, when ther's so much more to living than that, then I can only feel sorry for you! Try lifting up your eyes & getting your minds off your own little sob stories (believe me there are people who've got a lot worse sob stories than you, & have come through smiling) & personal greviences, & get on with your lives (ie: "MOVE ON"!), & leave the Family ALONE (unless you're seeking some sort of reconciliation, but I never knew any successful reconciliation to be had under the threat of reprisals & legal action!) to get on with what they have to get on with! If you have to agree to disagree about certain issues then so be it! Why would you want to force the Family into some sort of "acknowledgemant" or "public apology", to take "responsibility" (I'm still not sure what you think that would entail. Does it mean they would pay financial compensation--if so how much & to whom. You all know very well that the Family is not rolling in dough right now!)& what would that "responsibility" entail in practical terms & how would you enforce it!Cont (reply to this comment) |
| | From porceleindoll
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 02:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Why do we keep having to repeat to people that we want to move on, but we have to first acknowledge what happened to us and get it out of our system in order to truly heal, not just bury it in silence. Nobody can truly heal if they don't first acknowledge and deal with their issues. I for one am very appreciative for sites like this that allow me to share my grievances without the pressure of "murmurer, doubter, betrayer, traitor, negative complainer", and thus, am able to face things and put them where they belong.
If people like **** are going to be ruling the world in the hereafter, well, leave me out, I'll find my own spot far away. And I'm really not searching to rule over anyone else, I'll be happy with a garden, some books and the simple things of life. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 05:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pray tell, porceleindoll, (I'll be extra careful with you so as you don't 'crack up') what happened to you? Get it out of your 'system' (if that's what you want to do) so you can truly 'heal & deal with your issues' & 'not just bury it (whatever 'it' is) in silence'! If it's a 'garden' you want, I'm sure the Lord can arrange that for you! 'Books'?! You can buy remanded books by the pound! Second hand books (even new ones) are also really easy to come by. 'Amazon.com' is quite a good place to get ahold of stuff like that! 'Simple things of life'?! What could be simpler than to "trust in the Lord with all thine heart!"? Don't want anyone to rule over? That's ok too! Get yourself a cat! God's already given us dominion over the animals! Whatever it is you want, you can have! Delight yourself in the Lord (you DO know who that is, don't you? If not then wait a little while "No man shall say 'know the lord' for all shall know Him from the least unto the greastest!") & He shall give you the desires of your heart! (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 14:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think that a lot of "suggestions" & insinuations have been thrown out here with out much practical "landing gear" as to their successful application! And the reason for that, I believe, is that there really isn't any successful application for it, 'cause in my opinion most of it is just hot air! (That's fine too as long as everyone knows that that's what it is!) Sorry gotta go--be online tommorrow I hope! (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 06:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
“Would you really listen to what the Lord has to say if it really was him speaking & not me?”
Can’t you just accept my word for it when I say that I will?
“How would you know the dif?!”
If it resembled the writing and diatribe style you have demonstrated hitherto, then I would definitely consider the prophecy tainted. The Lord has the full scope in view. If the prophecy you receive is limited to one perspective, I would consider it tainted. The Lord knows our hearts better than you do. He is compassionate and not condesending. If there are any references to the judgment which the Lord will pour out on us ‘backsliders’ for being, as you put it, “in bed with the enemy”, then I‘ll have my doubts as to how clear your channel is.
Now this is not to say that I will only accpet your prophecy if it is something that I want to hear. But I have had enough contact with the Lord myself (and still do, by the way) to know when it’s His voice speaking and not some fallible person with his own opinions. Is that a good enough explanation for you?
In reference to “Prophet Alf”: I would hope that someone of your intelligence would recognise satire when he sees it.
“Just remember when you spread those lovely wings where you inherited them from”
We inherited them from the glob of squirming goo (aka caterpillar) we were before we became the butterfly. Are you saying that the cocoon gave us the wings? The cocoon just helped bring them out.
“As for fire from heaven...Did I say anything about that?”
Last I heard lightning can bring “fire from heaven”. But that aside, I really think I shouldn’t have to put “my words, not yours” after every phrase to make sure you don’t feel like I’m putting words in your mouth. Would you agree?
“Maybe the reason you can't see the "point" clearly is because you're looking for everything to be spelled out in black & white so you don't have to excercise your own discernment or wisdom to apply principles from the Word for yourselves!”
"Nameless", that bit of patronization was not needed and certainly uncalled for. Can you accept it if I tell you that the above assumption is false?
“we're gonna have to learn how to handle people if we're gonna be ruling the world”
Would you say that you’ve been an exemplary case of good people handling on this site? Now don’t go pointing the finger at others. So what if some people on this site aren’t people handlers. That’s no excuse for you not to be. The question above was directed at you and no one else.
“Whare's your world vision gone?“
I’ll ingore the spelling here as that’s a side issue and I understand what you’re trying to say. So to answer your question: Last I checked I still had it. On what do you base your presumption that it’s gone? Just because someone posts something here on this site doesn’t mean they live for this site. It doesn’t mean that they are not productive individuals who are on their way to becoming world changers. It reflects only a fraction of the lives they have now chosen to live. Please keep that in mind when posting here.
...“if you plan to do something more with your lives than spend the rest of it piddling around with pettines”...
Who are you to judge that? What are you doing with your life? Are you trying to set yourself up as an example for us to follow?
“but I never knew any successful reconciliation to be had under the threat of reprisals & legal action”
I’m sure you find that the “threats of reprisal” will remain just that. But I do believe that the legal action will materialize. It may take some time, but the Family shouldn’t rest on their laurels just yet.
As to the reconciliation aspect: I'll get to that in a minute.
“If you have to agree to disagree about certain issues then so be it!”
Maybe you don’t understand. People have been abused in the Family, be it sexually, emotionally, or physically (They haven’t just heard about it, it happened to them). It’s not a matter of “agreeing to disagree” it’s a matter of accountability; of getting those responsible for the abuse to accept responsibility. Whether the outcome means monetary compensation or just getting Maria and Peter to hear ‘our side of the story’ CLEARLY and getting a sincere apology and admittal of responsibility from them remains to be seen.
The reason that many people are turning to legal action is that their cries for help have been stifled by the very people they once believed to be loving shepherds (Maria and Peter). When you’ve written letter after letter to those “loving shepherds” trying to get them to acknowledge your situation and each time all you get back is “Message received and passed on to Mama. GBY! Much love, Ashley” (or something to that effect) then it’s only natural that you will take it a step further through legal action.
It looks like you haven’t noticed, but most of the accounts of abuse posted here, are not second or third hand, they are first hand accounts, which can be verified by both current and former members. Is it gossip when you say “I was sexually abused by someone old enough to be my father”? No it isn’t. If anything, it’s a little humiliating for some. Would you appreciate someone trampling on your heart if you bared it?
“I think that a lot of "suggestions" & insinuations have been thrown out here with out much practical "landing gear" as to their successful application”
Do you think we’d post that kind of “landing gear” here where the public and the Family has access to it? Just because you don’t see any strategy posted here, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Think about it for a second.
“Nameless”, I think it’s really great that you’ve finally been able to express yourself clearly and tell us what you really feel without beating around the bush. If you don’t understand what I mean, then read the last part of your final post and compare it to the rest of the stuff you’ve posted. It’s a world of difference and I look forward to seeing you keep it up. Looks like that prayer I prayed for you yesterday helped. (That wasn’t meant to be patronizing, by the way. That was an honest compliment.) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Albatross
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 15:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hi,******* You should know better than to expect anyone to post anything in terms of details on this site. So you can think nothing will ever be done, or you can spend your off-line hours dreading impending disaster. It makes little difference to me. Time will tell. Assuming that something is not a reality just because you have not seen it, will leave you with precious little to believe in. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 05:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
So then what, pray tell, is this site for?! Just to 'let off steam'?! OK, as long as everyone knows that that's what it's for, & not to take it seriously! "Oh site where is thy victory, Oh 'accusations' where are thy stings?!"
In the same vein, assuming that something IS a reality just because someone says it or sugests it, is going to have the opposite effect, namely, you won't know what to believe! That's folly as well!
The only thing I dread (either on-line or off) is getting led away from the Lord, or missing the calling He has for me through my own foolishness or lack of wisdom!
I'm not sure exactly what it was that makes little difference to you, but I guess 'time will tell'! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 06:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, dear Daniel (you don't mind if I refer to you like that, do you?!), it seems to me that you've got it WRONG again (I say 'again' because if I'm right in believing that you're the Daniel that wrote that 'Open threat [that's what it really boils down to!] to the Family leadership [namely Maria & Peter], then I stand by my comment in reply to your post...and I quote, "Wait till God makes empty of your threat!")! I'm not 'anti-Family' as you have assumed! Another example to me of the immaturity (in my opinion) of your mental processes! Do you know that not everything is 'black & white', & I believe the Family has acknowledged itself that they don't consider that "you're either for us or against us"! That would also be a very foolish & irrational view to take! I believe in the Family as being God's chosen people on this Earth at this point in time! So how could I be against God's people & yet still with conscience say I belonged to the Lord! I have already stated my belief in the fact that "the Family being made up of human beings which by nature are inherently flawed (hence the need for Salvation by someone un-flawed [I don't think there's any question as to the Family believing this to be true. See their Statement of Faith, & numerous Mo-Letters on the subject! The Family knows, accepts, believes & actively spreads the Good news, or Gospel, of Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone, & obedience to the Word of God])! But you, & your post, are also inherently flawed!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Anthony
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 14:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
A) *******: Do you know that not everything is 'black & white', & I believe the Family has acknowledged itself that they don't consider that "you're either for us or against us"! That would also be a very foolish & irrational view to take!
B)Jesus: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad,(Matthew 12:30).
Then:
C)Logic: Jesus and the Bible take a very foolish and irrational view.
Regards,
Anthony (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Anthony
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 21:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. (Mark 9:38-41 KJV)
Anthony: It makes a difference when put in context.
Regards (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Friday, July 19, 2002, 08:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hope you're not suggesting that there are any devils here that need to be cast out (even though one **** here suggested that he was in desperate need of an exorcism--personally I have no desire to get into that sort of stuff, especially with someone who has made it clear that he enjoys their company!), & as far as the cup of cold water I have given (& also received) many cups of cold water to those who belong to Christ! I'm still not sure I understand what exactly the difference is it was supposed to make, but you get an 'A' for effort! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Anthony
Friday, July 19, 2002, 16:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your persnickety is hilarious, thou fool!Raca.
*******: I hope you're not suggesting that there are any devils here that need to be cast out (even though one **** here suggested that he was in desperate need of an exorcism--personally I have no desire to get into that sort of stuff, especially with someone who has made it clear that he enjoys their company!)
Anthony: What would give you that idea? I enjoy debating with worthy opponents, but you’re an insipid idiot, (at least, your on-line personality is). I gave you the full verse to show you that your explanation or conceptualization is faulty at best.
*******: Note the differences between "He that is not for ME is against me" & the phrase "He that is not aginst (against) US (as in the Disciples following Christ) is on our part!"
Anthony: What difference? Like I said, you’re an idiot.
Regards,
Anthony
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | From *******
Friday, July 19, 2002, 08:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
You might be right, but try to be a little charitable if you can (I realise that it may not be easy especially if you've tried to "slam these goddamn phonies so many times", & feel like you're hitting your head against a brick wall, but maybe a different approach is in order here!). I think just about everybody deserves a shot at redemption (Let's make it crystal clear here that I'm in no way even remotely suggesting that I'm the redeemer, but if I can help people to realise [& to become dissatisfied with] the husks they've settled for, & they in turn turn [read BACK] to the Redeeemer [for those who have turned their backs on Him] then I'm over-joyously happy) as I've found in the Blessed Redeemer (reply to this comment) |
| | From Albatross
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 08:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good morning *******,
Pay attention. When I said you were anti-family, I was being sarcastic. i meant to suggest that for someone who claims to be so pro-family, you are sure making them look bad with your angry, poorly constructed rants. But then i am no longer surprised you did not get it. Look friend, we are all flawed humans. But I don't see sexual abuse, educational neglect, and forced child labor, as simple human flaws.(whatever other good deeds the family claims to be doing)Yes my open letter was a warning, it was also a challenge to Zerby and Kelly to do something about the past abuses. Remember this when you quote volumes of scripture in postings. we just skip past it looking (nay wishing for)a salient articulate thought to respond to. BTW, you can call me Daniel, it is my real name. What is yours?
Daniel (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 10:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let's get something straight, I'm not a "pro-what-ever-the-Family-has-done" person, just as I wouldn't be a "pro-what-ever you-have-done"! But since your mentioning the "Family" as being responsible for all theses "evils" you say have befallen you, let's examine your claims! How 'bout we start with "educational neglect" (that's an easy one!)?! I don't know if you're aware, but the Family has published volumes & volumes of educational material for children, young people & adults alike, (some of it really good I might add)! So why do you claim "educational neglect"? Was it because your parents neglected to educate you? Or did you neglect to take opportunity to avail yourself of all the material that was available to you? That would be like a pupil saying that he got bad grades 'cause of the school he was in! Did you know that most of the greatest minds of our century, who've really done anything worth anything, mostly educated themselves! Did you expect that Dad, Maria, Peter, & WS (whom it seems you're trying to hold responsible for all this) be in every home at all times to spoon feed you with the education you say you missed, plus keep up with everything else you say they neglected? Secondly, did your parents neglect your educational upbringing because they were trying hard to serve the Lord (which it seems that some now hold as an undesirable thing to do or to have done) at the same time as raising a family & trying to support themselves & their families (ie:YOU!)? 2B contd (reply to this comment) |
| | From ruffneck
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 19:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
In my opinion, the purpose of an education is not merely to teach a pupil what to think, but to give him/her the facility to think for
him/herself. In other words, encourage critical thinking instead of group-think! In this, I feel lies the Family's worst failing in Education.
Then of course there is this issue: Family educational study materiél that is available (this includes certification thereby) to the (already
fully-occupied) young person in the Family isn't worth very much here "on the outside". A person would be hard pressed (!) to find a
decent job soley on the basis of a CVC diploma, I'm very sorry to say. Not unless you are either exceedingly (!) good at what you are
certified in (somewhat rare for a young person newly out of the F.) or an accomplished spin-doctor. (and most of us are, having lived
"deceivers yet true" all our lives - I know my first résumé was fairly creative. :-)
It is my personal opinion that this could account for the reason that more males leave the F. than females: A young man can just about
always earn money - no experience required - with "the sweat of his brow", whereas a woman often has that option denied to her. I don't
know of too many physical-labour jobs that the average 120lb 18-year-old girl is going to be too eager to do, regardless of how bad her
home life is. Generally speaking, temp typists don't get paid very well either, that is, if you can find work for more than a few days in a
row. In most (modern) countries, in order to even do "child-care" for a living you have to pass a criminal record check, have several
CPR and/or first aid certifications, not to mention that said job almost always requires provable experience and references as well.
(CVCs may or may not cut it, depending on your salesmanship. I was a lousy salesman.) My point is that so much of the Family's
"education" is so M0-centric that it is barely useful outside of the exceedingly narrow scope of the cult. The CVC is barely more than a
document testifying that you've finished your MO-letter reading list. Granted, not everything you learn in the Family is utterly useless.
Interaction with bosses is a breeze, after all, my growing up in the family mostly consisted of kissing some leader or other's ass every
day to keep my own from being "boarded". A boss whose ass you only have to kiss for 8-12 hours a day? Zero Perspiration. I've grown
to loathe the "ass-kiss" approach to advancement, so I don't use this "weapon of the spirit" as much as I could. - Just for clarification.
Just about all my "school records" are forgeries, (as are just about everyone else's that I grew up with) written many years after the fact
(fiction), with imaginary grades and teacher's comments. In fact, I filled in most of my own "diplomas" myself. (being the guy that did
everyone else's too, but that's aside from the point) If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to send you a scan or 2 of these fake diplomas.
What skills/interests I have now I can attribute to being a "rotten apple" and using my "word time" to read "system" books (thank bog for
World-Book, Americana and Britannica encyclopedias) or at least derivatives thereof, such as the "how to get things things done". And,
*******, were you hibernating during the whole "school" thing? I say this because you want us to blame our parents for a lot of our
generation's shitty education. The fact is that while we were putatively "home schooled", lots of us were in fact "boarding school" (see if
you can figure out that pun!) raised, albeit without the emphasis on "school". (people that lived at the Thai Training (?) Centre at least
know what I am talking about) This was a direct result of MO's "School Vision". My mom (single parent) knew little or nothing of my
rearing from the ages of 12 till about 17, always having lived in another home or sometimes even country, while I lived under
"shepherds", "the board" and "The New Model (Victor)" programme. Therefore, I feel that the blame for my anaemic education lies at the
feet of the "shepherds" whose job it was to be our parental surrogates. I think many of my fellow young people have similar stories.
Myself, I was 13 when I started "Ministry Training" (as a gardener/kitchen-hand, not being "spiritual" enough to do anything else) at a
"School", and since then I haven't had any schooling at all. Well, there were the odd scholastic classes at both the Family "schools" I
attended but it was by no means a proper curriculum, or very regular for that matter. Ministry Training was the main focus at both
institutions. Yes, I did eventually get accepted to college, but no thanks to the Family's attempts to "educate" me, but almost solely due to
my own interests. (for which interests I might add, I was often castigated by my "shepherds") There are lots (I wouldn't want to guess at
a figure here, but if the people I know in/from the family are any form of cross-section, it's a high number) of people whose "shepherds"
followed the MO letters about education and consequently MANY young people lack essential skills, like basic math (fractions, decimals,
etc. which I'm pretty sure you learn in 6th grade) or Spelling and Grammar (a lot of young people are all but illiterate when it comes to
writing in English). - Not to mention other vital parts of a well rounded world-view, like history (not bible history or bergstory, either.),
philosophy, science (by which I mean real science! Not science based on belief, which constituted all my "scientific" training. - How
unscientific.) critical thinking, social studies, etc. The list can go on and on. Fact is, undereducation & miseducation always was, is, and
(if Zerby has her way) will continue to be, the order of the day for young people in the Family. Why would anybody do something like
this, you ask? What motive? Simple! - Ignorant, undereducated mindlessly willing peons are easy to control. A smart, well-informed (and
by which I mean "fully informed") THINKING populace generally lets it's leadership get away with less than an ignorant rabble spouting
religious nonsense. Especially ones who are happy to be "yielded vessels" to whatever new purge or revolution somes along. The family
kind of turned marxism on it's head: instead of mere religion being the opiate of the people, which revolution was to change, revolutions
themselves became the opiate of the people. Don't you remember when there was a "new revoultion" in the air? Why, it was the Family
equivalent of a old Southern Revival. A whole lot of (what turned out to be) temporary entertainment, after which people continued doing
just as did before. Funny how people can get addicted to the strangest things. Why would anyone let somebody do this to them? After
all, aren't there hundreds of smart, intelligent people in the Family? Yes. By all means there is. But these same smart, intelligent people
have been misled by a very clever man who was able to preach just what they wanted to hear. He told them that they were the best;
God's children who didn't have to be responsible for their actions on Earth, becuase "Jesus is coming back" and "it's the endtime, so we
won't be needing a "system" education in order to rule the world". So what happened? Elitism. Plain and simple. Berg gave the Family
somebody to look down on. I'm very much reminded of a passage from "Jungle Book" about the Bandar-log (that's the monkey-people,
for you non-bibliophiles :-) here goes:
'.. the Bandar-log began, twenty at a time, to tell him (Mowgli) how great and wise and strong and gentle they were, and how foolish he
was to wish to leave them. "We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in the jungle! We all say
so, and so it must be true," '
sounds pretty similar to "We are it! We are the chosen Children of God for Today! - How do we know? God told me so!", doesn't it? This
would all be well and good if it could be empirically proven that "The Family" is "God's Chosen People! This statement, however, doesn't
lend itself well to independent verification (in fact, rather the opposite), but the actions of it's founder(s) and "prophet(s)" certainly are an
argument to the contrary. It's my belief that never expecting to have to be accountable to the world past 1992 (or 2k or whatever) created
the sad situation that The Family is today. The same argument works as to why otherwise well meaning people became such tyrants:
they never thought we/they'd live long enough to be accountable. That combined with the "all things" and "law of love" doctrines created
an virtual attitude of "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" that is horribly myopic at best. The movie "Joe vs. the volcano" (in a
roundabout way, albeit) illustrated quite clearly that people who have no future can be talked into doing damn near ANYTHING, all
becuase accountability *requires* a future. The Family must not take accountability to God seriously, or they would have paused for
reflection before riding roughshod over thousands of young lives like mine. What is it that the Bible (your holy book, not mine, by the
way) says about those that "offend these little ones and teach men so"? Better that a millstone be hung about his neck and he be cast
into the depths of the sea. I'd say that's a relatively harsh solution compared to what most of us would like out of the Family. Heck, most
of us just want an apology and recognition-of-fault from the Family. Personally, I ain't holding my breath, but considering that the family
is carrying some damn big rocks near the edge of a cliff, If I was M&P I would be.
On a slightly different note, *******, one of these days you are going to wake up and realise just how much of your life was wasted
propounding Berg, Zerby and Kelly's nonsense, and believe me, it's not a fun realisation. My point in saying this is: don't burn any
bridges that you can't rebuild. Anyway, I've tapped enough for today. More diatribes tomorrow, if you're unlucky :-D
(reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 10:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Which brings me to the next topic "forced child labour" ! I don't know what you mean exactly as forced child labour (do you mean "he that shall not work, shall not eat"?!) & what age you count as a child. In most societies of the world for centuries now, it's been an accepted thing that the children help in the family business & work towards the support of the family, & if you've ever lived in some eastern countries, that family would often include uncle, aunt, grandmother & grandfather etc etc! Not that they had to do it all by them selves, but they contributed to it! Or are you just spoiled in that you were born or brought up in this century in a western country (or hold a passport of the same) where child labour laws are now in place. (I would hasten to remind you that it's basically only in this century even in western countries that such laws have been instituted!) Remember that we also have a lot more amenities, & the little things in life we now take for granted, that make our lives so much easier compared to centuries gone by! When was the last time you had to go hunting for your supper, or spend the whole day in the field with your father, plowing; or chopping wood, milking cows shovelling horse-shit, slopping the hogs, slaving away in a factory or coal mine, with no wage guarantees, unions, decent working hours, rights, [or even computers to use in your free time to play on, surf the web, or share your bitternesses or greviences with friends & foes alike] etc, etc.? (reply to this comment) |
| | From faeriraven
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 14:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excuse me 7*, I've kept quiet for this long but you're starting to really get on my nerves. Maybe you grew up in the cult in a sheltered environment where your parents or teachers let you have the TIME to gather the material that the family has produced so that you could get your education. Lucky you!! Unfortunately, some of us weren't so lucky, such as myself. We all have our reasons of why we think that proper education wasn't administered to us. By PROPER education I mean mandatory studying past the age of 10. When I was 13, I had a group of 8 toddlers which lived, breathed and slept in my room. I was with them 23 hours a day (1 hour a day they were with their parents) I did not have time to study or get any education. This went on for a few years after that and never, ever was I given the opportunity and might again I say TIME for myself to study. Yes, I might have a good job and a good life now, but that is because when I left the cult I worked hard to make it for myself since no body else seemed to care where or what I became. It's still difficult not having a high school diploma, or anything to show for my years of non existent schooling. I'm 22, a single mother w/ a 6 yr old son and I am determined to give him the best education possible no matter what the cost. Oh, and your comment @ when was the last time you had to spend a day in the field... that would be the last time I went canning in 100' heat for indecent hours per day with no wage at all. Serving the Lord or not, no parent should neglect their Childs education. It doesn’t matter how good they think their cause is. Of course, this is my own opinion. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 11:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Seems to me like you need to check your reference points, before making blanket accusations! Now lets get to the big one (you always save the best till last!) that everyone loves to talk about & jump on the bandwagon 'cause it sounds so "tasty" (I mean when I say that that almost everyone seems to get some sort of vicarious or sadistic [however subtle or disguised] enjoyment or pleasure by digging up these things & talking about them!) & "exciting" (again I say that tongue in cheek, as it may not [or maybe did, we never know what are some people's suppressed fantasies which for the sake of being 'politically correct' or being able to join in some "righteous" crusade against someone else, or for fear of looking guilty themselves they have disavowed--at least for the time being] have seemed very exciting for the alleged vicitm [still 'alleged'--nothing's been proven here yet!] at the time)! Forgive me if I'm treading on "sacred" or "hallowed" ground here, but if you're going to get to the site of an alleged grave [ie: where it's claimed somebody's innocence is buried] then you might have to tread on a little bit of "consecrated" turf! I'll take off my shoes & try to tread softly! So here goes: Daniel, am I not correct in assuming from your name that you are a Male? If so then how, when & from whom specifically did you allegedly suffer "sexual abuse"? I assume you would be refering to a Female that would have sexually abused you (I pray to God I'm right in that respect) 2B contd (reply to this comment) |
| | From Albatross
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 11:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, well…it looks as if I’ve been challenged personally. As the challenged party I have the right to choose the weapon and the venue. (Alf and all, please forgive the dueling reference.) I have wondered whether I can maintain enough interest to pick through your disjointed prose for points that deserve an intelligent answer. I have decided that (time permitting) I will answer you on a point-by-point basic. However, I refuse to further clutter up this great website with your tirades. I think that perhaps this thread has gone further than the general aims of this site. That being the case, I suggest we make our way to a Yahoo chat group linked from the Movingon home page. The exfamilyyouth group. (Thank you Xeena) Just register, choose a handle, come back and let me know. I’ll meet you there. Please read this very carefully: I will debate you. I will not debate you on this site. You will have a large enough audience on the Yahoo group.
So, I am willing to debate. Here are a few conditions:
~ I will not debate theology for its sake. I am not a Christian and quite frankly have no interest in arguing the endless minutia of Christian or Family doctrine.
~ You must not expect me to respond with the same rapid-fire intensity that you have demonstrated. A full-time job, school and an active social life do not allow me that luxury.
~ I will ignore anything further you post on the movingon site, unless it is an invitation to meet you on the exfamilyyouth site.
~ If you return to your nearly incoherent ramblings, I will lose interest and discontinue our debate.
~ Once we have exhausted the limits of this type of debate, I will walk away. (Whether you think we are done or not)
~ You must choose a pronounceable screen name. I refuse to argue with a symbol.
~ I will ignore inane comments such as when you said, you assume I must be a male because my name is Daniel. Those are just a waste of space.
If you agree to these reasonable conditions, I will debate you.
Daniel
(reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 04:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am amused by the arrogance of your assumption that you have been personally challenged, & no, I will not "debate" you on your "terms" which as far as I can tell would mean I would have to be drawn alone into the Arena where you & all your other friendly tigers are waitng to try to devour me! That would not constitute a fair "duel" in any logically thinking mind! To correct what seems to be another assumption on your part, I'm not seeking a "large enough audience" on any site! As far as debating theology, do you mean that (taking quite literally the two base words [from Latin] "Theo" maning God, & "logia", which to my limited knowledge means 'knowledge of' or 'understanding of' hence making the word "theology" the knowledge of or understanding of God!) we are not to discuss anthing having to do with the Divine or the revelation of His self to mankind! If that is the case then I'm afraid we won't have anything substantial or of interest to me to debate, since the reason this web-site exists (as far as I can tell) is because of differences in opinions between yourselves & the "older generation" as to the rights & responsibilities of the Family, [& whether those rights or responsibilities have been upheld or not] which as we all know is a theologically based entity! We would only be going around in circles discussing opinions & battling pointlessly with technical jargon, which I for one have no desire to indulge in! I too work & have a family!
Therefore I decline your "offer"! (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 06:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
It seems clear that you haven't checked out the Yahoo group or else you wouldn't compare it to an arena with tigers. There are, as a matter of fact, several current Family members who subscribe to and actively post on that group. I'm sure you would have a lot of people backing up what you have to say if you can state it clearly enough.
No one's forcing you to, obviously (like we even could), but why don't you try it out, and if you really don't think it's worth it, just take yourself off the group. It's as simple as that.
I'd also like to suggest to you the Yahoo group "Family Youth" (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/familyyouth). There are about 100(??) current Family members on there and if you are so sold out on the Family, I'm sure you would enjoy their "company". I'm sure that "NTL" (Nat -- the guy who moderates this group) would be just you're kind of guy. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From *******
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 07:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hope you make it too the loo (or wherever your favorite 'barfing' spot is [man, wherever it is it must reak to high heaven--if you don't mind I use that expression]) in time so as to avoid you having to spend whatever precious little of it you may have, (in-between barfs) cleaning up your sty (or whatever it is you call your abode!)
So you do have a heart! That's good to know as well!
If we're drones then what would that make you, I wonder? Clones, perhaps! Who's the cloner & did they add "growth accelaration hormones" to your diet? They forgot to add "maturity accelaration hormones" to what ever cocktail you've been scoffing from (note the double meaning of that word! To borrow a phrase from another poster here today--"pun intended"!) (reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe
Friday, July 19, 2002, 16:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
you can't "scoff from a cocktail"! Stop using big words incorrectly to try to sound intelligent! It's bad enough your logic makes no sense, do you have to offend us with your horrid grammar as well?
scoff means to laugh at or treat with contemptous disregard
quaff means to swallow hurriedly in one draught
I suspect that you were trying to convey the meaning of the last word. I guess your family education isn't so great after all. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Saturday, July 20, 2002, 08:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
DEFINITIONS:
Scoff 1: v. speak about something in a scornfully derisive way. n. an expression of scornful derision.
Scoff 2: v. eat quickly & greedily. n. food.
Cocktail 1: an alcholic drink consisting of a spirit mixed with other ingredients, such as fruit juice. >a dish consisting of small pieces of food, typically served as an hors d' oeuvre: a prawn cocktail.
Cocktail 2: a mixture of dangerous substances or factors, especially when dangerous or unpleasant: a potent cocktail of tranquilisers
I guess my Family education wasn't that bad after all! (reply to this comment) |
| | From #######
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 08:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
You may intend as many puns as you like!!! just the fact that you bother to reply to my stupid posts makes you an idiot!!!! What makes you think I belonged to the f***king (YES Gwen I did say FUCKING!!!) group in the first palce??? Except for my participation on this here website I have nothing to do with you inbread morons. (pun intended!!) hahahahahaha!!!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 08:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Did I ever say I thought you belonged to the "f***cking group in the first place"? It seems like quite a few people around on this web-site are suffering from a basic problem -(I would've said "educational problem" but I'm quite sure plenty of people here would've jumped on that one right away to verbally abuse the Family even more!)-- "reading comprehension" (sorry Jules about using your "insult" so many times. Problem is, I just keep coming up against the same thing!)! The fact that this #######, according to his claims, was never a part of the Family would suggest that it has nothing to do with educational neglect on the part of the Family! Could it be just plain ol' stupidity or arrogance??!! I don't know! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 06:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm sorry if someone taking a candid & objective view of the situation is 'irritating the hell out of you'! You don't really want to hold on to the 'hell' in you (if you meant that literally!), do you?! 'Cause hell answer to hell & will take you right there with it! If it's coming out of your system then that's a good thing, isn't it?! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 06:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
If I may interject, the screen name has nothing to do with her personality. If everyone's screen name reflected who they are, then I'd be one heck of a drunk, which I assure you I'm not. Likewise, it would make you quite conceited for choosing "7 stars" of Revelations 2 as you're name. So let's not play this little "name game" you've started here. You're 29 years old, for crying out loud. I would expect some of your comments here from a 12 year old.
BTW, how many kids do you have (you said you had a family)? I have 2 girls. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 07:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Correction, JohnieWalker, those are 7 asteriks (you can call them asterix if you like--ie: after the cartoon character) not stars & it would make you presuptous to assume I would take to myself the symbol of the seven churches! It shows however you know your bible quite well, which is quite commendable for someone who gave the "wake up call" to me the other day as to the fact that "most people on this site are not Christians" & "have little regard for what's in the scriptures"! Does this preclude you? I hope so 'cause I've gotten to quite like you over the last few days! You seem to be fairly fair-minded, in my opinion, with very little (if you don't mind me using this expression) BS clouding your comprehension (again, not saying that everyone else here does, it just so happens that YOUR posts have stood out to me as having that particular quality)! Very, very commendable I must say in-deed! (again, I'm not being patronising in saying that, but it's refreshing to have someone to whom I feel I can relate-to as being fairly fair-minded!)
Sorry if you've felt some of my comments to be coming from a 12 year-old! Some of the comments here lack a certain maturity of thinking & sometimes you have to get down (again, I'm not being condessending in saying that, but it's true) to peoples levels & (for want of a better phrase) "answer a fool according to his folly", or "become all things to all men"!
Regarding family, I have one son, 6 years old, & really want more kids, wife doesn't! (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 10:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Regarding the 7 stars: I meant that as a joke, something which was not to be taken literally. Naturally, I understand that you wouldn’t have chosen a screen name which would make you seem conceited. I presume you are of equal intelligence so as to not consider us to be fragile (porcelleindoll), drunkards(your’s truly), blips (as in Cosmic), or unshaved body parts (ruff-neck) on account of our user IDs :). I’m sure you realise that I am only being humorous.
“Does this preclude you?”
It does, actually. I consider myself a Christian, but not in the way most Christians consider themselves so and certinly not in the Family sense. I believe that Christianity at large (the Family included) has gone far off track in many respects due to misinterpretations, wrong translations or (un)intentional twisting of the scriptures. Although I refer to myself as a Christian (as that is the only religion which comes closest to describing my current faith) I am still in search of the Truth which Jesus said he was in John14:6. Thus, I myself do not claim to be right, nor would I try to convince others that they must believe the way I do. Religion (the pure kind) is every individual’s personal matter and I do not believe that my faith is the best for everyone.
But enough of that. I could fill an entire section with my questions and hypotheses, neither of which would be appropriate for this one.
My point was that most poeple on this site will not pay much respect to your (or my, for that matter) knowledge of the scriptures, so it is best to stick to one’s personal reasoning and mental logic.
”Very, very commendable I must say in-deed!”
Thank you. I quite enjoy the opportunity to “debate” (if you will) myself. But let me add that there are many more fair-minded people posting here. Lauren, Albatross, Jules, Craven de Kere, Porceleindoll and many others, which I am sure I have failed to mention, are equally as open to fair dialog with someone who doesn’t take it upon himself to liken everyone a fool in his first few posts.
“it's refreshing to have someone to whom I feel I can relate-to as being fairly fair-minded”
Hmmmm.... I wonder. Was this meant tongue in cheek? Probably not. I’ll have to get to know you better before I comment on the ‘fair-minded’ part.
“I'm not going to indulge you with a reply! Sorry!”, “No comment.”
Statements such as those directly above have been included in your posts quite frequently in reply to ex-Family member’s comments. In other instances, you simply ignored direct questions. I’m curious as to why this is. Might it be that we have declared a metaphorical "check" to you on occasion and you have had no reasonable response? Or perhaps, you thought you had posted enough name-calling and it was a polite way of sparing someone from yet another bout of verbal (read: typed) incontinence? Or perhaps (a more probable reason yet), you’ve chosen not to “answer a fool according to his folly”? Why is that, and what’s your reasoning?
About your kid: I hope for your sake you get your wish of another child fulfilled soon. I think having 2 or 3 kids is great (although 2 are enough for me at the moment) as long as you're confident that you can provide for them. What kind of work do you do? (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Saturday, July 20, 2002, 09:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do realise that you're trying to be humorous (I still have to make sure I explain things, just on the off-chance that someone is not) & I hope that you've also noted that in many of my comments I'm striving to do the same!
As to why I've ignored direct questions: I've tried to not ignore any direct questions that I have a direct answer to that I feel would be waranted. some questions I've ignored for the reason that I'm one person replying to many comments & I have to prioritise in my mind which question I wish to give priority to & which I would push further down the list! Another reason is that certain things I don't necessarily have any interest in answering, or feel like the answer I might give might not be appropriate at present! And still others I don't answer perhaps because they're "leading" questions, & I don't want to be led where they're going! There may be a few other reasons as well kicking around in the back of my mind, but those would probably be the main ones.
I'm sorry if you feel like I've likened you to a fool in my first few posts. Actaully my first few posts are not even on this page, & if you were to read them & even the first ones I started posting on this page you would probably see that I didn't start calling everyone fools, & still haven't! I did come in carefully however as I'd read a bit from this site & had already gotten the gist of how things worked on this site! The "A fools wrath is heavier than them both" mentality was precautional--Wise! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Craven
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 04:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are free to decide who you regard as an idiot. This has been the case since the dawn of humanity and shouldn't come as a surprise to you.
Instead of railing against the painfully obvious fact that many now consider you a fool try altering the behaviour that causes it.
Or you could always just get used to being pitied as a fool.
I wish ignorance were painfull. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | From *******
Monday, July 15, 2002, 11:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're the ones stating your points so loudly & clearly! I'm simply trying to pull back from hysteria & point out a few inaccuracies in the diatribes being levelled aginst the Family & if, as is the preponderance of law, innocent until proven guilty is still the order of the day, then I'm just examining motives & factual evidence (did you know that in a court of law you will be objected to if you put words into the defendants or witnesses mouth?!) of the "witnesses" to deteremine if their "evidence" (I haven't heard much "evidence" here; mainly just hype, hysteria, & out-dated media "sound-bites" & hear-say!) to see if htere's a real case going or if there's just a lot of cheap "chin-wagging" (or keyboard abuse, as the case may be) & gossip! Chinese whispers is a good game that I'm quite sure you'll all find very enjoyable....It allows you to get all excited about something someone is supposed to have said (or in this case done), & no matter that by the time it gets back to the beginning again it bears little or no resemblance to the facts or sentence with which it begun! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cosmicblip
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 23:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
um yes, duh. we are stating our opinions clearly & loudly & would like you to do the same. that's what that means.
also, i wouldn't bring up the game "chinese whispers" because not only is the name racist, it's not something you want people to think of when seeing where your closely held precious beliefs come from-- the "good book."
translated from dead archaic languages by falible unobjective human beings, who copied it from other humans who got some of it word of mouth from drunk people. talk about "chinese whispers!!!" (reply to this comment) |
| | | | From Rock
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 02:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear *******:
I am not sure if you are a current family member or a supporter. I have seen and heard many comments regarding Family abuses since 1973. While in the family I worked under many different leaders, some who knew Berg well. During these years and since I left there have been some interesting spins put on the family abuses. I just want to list a few of them.
1. In 1973 I was told by one of Berg's early disciples that sexual sharing went on and they knew it because they were there. I did not pay attention. Now we know it was true.
2. I often heard that the royal fam lived like kings at the expense of others and did not believe it. Now we know it is true.
3. Long before the king Arthur series we heard that FF'ing was going to come. Now we know it is true.
4. Berg as well as M&P required religious prostitution for money. Ado lied right to my face over this issue, but there is proof starting from the FF volume and "Make it Pay"
5. Rape and child abuse happened to Sg's over and over again starting with the Royals and right on down caused, aided and required by Berg's doctrines and still held as truth by top leadership. We have the testimony of people who were there. In addition Berg's letters are clear that he believed it was OK to sexually molest children; he practiced it and taught others to do the same. Now we know this is true.
6. We know that Berg, M&P used falsly obtained ID to travel on. They obtained it by getting people to commit crimes.
I have been watching this pattern of personal attack on family detractors since 1972. At one point I was the family front man to the RCMP and other authorities in Canada during heavy persecution in 1975. Leadership directed me exactly what to say. There was no hesitiation to lie and twist the truth. I still remember going to see one of the RCMP senior officers and following leadership's direction and not telling the truth.
I hope some day to see how various members of the family will react in court. M&P and others are criminally responsible for promoting child sexual abuse and a raft of other offenses. Over and over again we see the facts of this abuse coming out. When people like Claire speak out in defense of the family they are part of a chain of deception that stretches right back to the double life of Mo as an abusive and perverse individual sexually abusing his own children. The family really is about theft, theft of childhood, theft of identity, theft of thought, theft of personal sexuality, theft of educational oppotunity and theft of a reasonable and balanced life.
Family leaders better pay attention to what all the survivors are saying. If you want to keep hiding you better get used to living in a garbage can, especially when M&P try to escape and dump all of you when they cannot make money off you or are at risk themselves of being brought to account for their crimes. They only care about the support and the personal power. That is a historical fact if you care to look at the long list of people they have discarded. Don't you ever get weary of carrying the weight of the lie you have to live every day. I used to hear it said all the time; "Got your fleebag".
Sincerely
Rocky (reply to this comment) |
| | From Tim
Monday, July 15, 2002, 19:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excuse me, but why is a person who bravely goes by the name of "*******" complaining about "Gossip and Hearsay" What are we supposed to call what we hear from you? Why don't you have enough confidence in your position to give us a name (Even a false one)
Also if you are going to use intelligent sounding legal-speak, then you should write the entire letter that way. Otherwise you just sound like a wannabe. (What the hell is the "Preponderance of Law" anyhow?) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 06:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
So would you call all that is shared on this web-site as you "letting your light so shine before men"?? If so then why do I get the feeling that people who read this may not be "glorifying your Father which is in Heaven" (if indeed that is what you're really trying to accomplish here!!)?? And what "good works" of yours are they seeing that would lead them to do so??!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 06:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wake up call! Most of the people on this site are no longer Christians so they have little or no regard for scripture. Since they are no longer guided by the 'good book', they have no obligation to follow it.
You, my friend, DO have that obligation as a Christian. So let's see some adherence to what you believe to be the Word of God. Now quit skirting the issue and put a name (real or otherwise) behind what you say. Quit pointing the finger and do some soul searching yourself....that is, if you can accept a 'correction' from a Systemite. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 08:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes I do try to adhere to the 'good book' (if it's so good then why don't you adhere to it?! Are you trying to be bad? If so then all of this is of no value whatsoever, & can be classed with all the other "hate-sites" & "propoganda" being foisted on the net today! You've just lost your good standing & "higher moral ground"!), & since the 'good book' (I'll just call it the Bible, if you don't mind!) says that we should "exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin" (I'm sure that's not happening to any of you....& if it were could YOU take a 'correction' from a non-systemite??!!!) I've said my peace with a conscience void of unrepented offense towards God & man! (By the way, any offense which I may have commited towards God or man I have appologised for & taken the blame myself first, before seeking that anyone else do the same towards me! I would suggest that some of you try that too!) I can't let brothers or sisters go on being maligned (either justly or unjustly) without saying something about it! So now I've said it, & now you know that your point of view may not be the only one that ex-members can take, including the 'silent majority' as someone else put it, who may not all, as someone seems to presume, agree with you! Now I believe I've laid grounds for "reasonable doubt" & believe that you're on very uncertain (legal & otherwise) ground! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Trent
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 21:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
What goes up must come down. What goes around comes around. Spiritual laws have become cliches because of their eerie inherent truths(no dogma can claim them). What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. But what if one(like you perhaps) does not practice to deceive but is a straight shooter in a polemic against all 'blanket accusations' against the 'Family'. You had better not shoot blanks in that case--which I am sure you are not. You are obviously loaded for elephants, but strangely the enemy you may find is a smaller prey--you, yourself--not us. Strange but true! One day you may see! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Albatross
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 09:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
With all due respect *******, it seems to me that your rambling posts on this site over the last 48 hours have done greater damage to your group than if you had just remained silent. Your use of scripture is not offensive, it's simply weak. Many of us left partly because we could not reconcile the logic that our minds were telling us, with the circular biblical "logic" that you have so aptly demonstrated for us through your postings. Your desire to defend the Family has to be admired.I hope you receive due recognition from the Family. The more of your type who become "family spokespersons", the easier our job will be. For my part, if ever I need a clear reminder of the mindset I gladly left behind, I will retured to this site and read your postings. I have had the pleasure to argue with some rather intelligent current young Family members on other sites. While I have had obvious disagreements with them, and am at times frustrated with the lack of a clear logical train in their arguments, (I sympathize with their task of defending the indefensible)I have enjoyed our contacts because they are learning the art of a good give-and-take debate. You on the other hand, tire me, even in the reading of the thousand lose threads of your emotional posts. Might I offer a suggestion? Take a step back for a few hours. Breathe a bit. Think about the most important points you have to make. Then come back and argue away. I think you will be welcomed. I think many here would enjoy the chance to quiz you on your faith.
You could even choose a alias. (no one would know it was you. ;) Just a thought,
Daniel (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From neez
Saturday, August 17, 2002, 21:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Like a two year old, screaming for attention.
It's a bit pathetic 7777777, you're here looking for some sort of validation of..something..in your life. I still haven't figured out what. So far I haven't noticed u getting any(btw.. are you getting any?).
Can't you just consider us all as backsliding, black-sheep systemites. Who have no interest in finding 'salvation' from frizzy freaks like yourself.
Maybe u should be out clowning, talking to people who have the advantage of ignorance on their side while having to listen to you. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 09:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
"could YOU take a 'correction' from a non-systemite??!!!"
You'd better believe it! I've done that all my life. Life is a never-ending learning process, I don't see why it should stop now.
"I've said my peace with a conscience void of unrepented offense towards God & man!"
So have we, Nameless, so have we.
"I can't let brothers or sisters go on being maligned"
... Neither can we let Family leadership get away with abuse of us and our brothers and sisters.
"Now I believe I've laid grounds for 'reasonable doubt' & believe that you're on very uncertain (legal & otherwise) ground!"
Believe what you will, Nameless, it's your right. But you haven't laid any grounds, you've just been "reflecting" this whole time, remember?
As far as your grounds: Make sure you allow for the possiblity that your bubble might burst one day. Make sure that you haven't laid your ground hastily and on an unstable foundation. Make sure that when you defend a side you believe to be right, that you have taken all (A-L-L) perspectives into consideration -- in this case, including ours.
I TRY to do this every day, and I find that ground which I previously thought was firmly laid had nothing supporting it.
You may choose to put as much faith in your 'laid grounds' as you wish. Just make sure you've got something to hold on to when the ground caves in. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 06:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, the phrase "A good book" can be aplied to any book which the reader thereof finds to be "good" for them (ie: an axe murderer [to take an extreme example] would find a novel with instructions about how to dis-embowel somebody a 'good book')! "THE Good Book is generally reserved for the Bible, which has altered the course of history, makes God's will & plan for mankind abundantly clear, & advises us on how to attain to Salvation for ourselves & others! THAT's the difference! It is the written source of the Life giving Word of God, without which nothing would ever have existed! Does that make my position abundantly clear?! Symantics??!! What's that?! (reply to this comment) |
| | From ruffneck
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 12:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Say, ********, wouldn't a devout Moslem say that Al-Quran is "THE Good Book"? Conversely, might not a Hindu refer to the Vedas as "THE Good Book(s)"? There are absolutes to be sure, but they are absolutes based almost solely on culture. Frankly, *******, we've seen the absolutes of your culture and it stinks to high heaven.
Sure, The Bible has changed history, but not all for the better either, IMO. Look at all the horrible things (!) that have been perpetuated in Christ's name, then rethink your proud position standing behind "THE "Good Book" that changed the world". And by the way, when you make statements like "It is the written source of the Life giving Word of God, without which nothing would ever have existed!" you'd best qualify that with an "in my opinion" lest you sound like just another (insincere) preachy hypocrite. Oh wait a minute... you can't help yourself if you sound like what you are. My bad.
Oh, and lots of books have "changed history". This does not give said books any moral weight. "Mein Kampf" changed history, so did Mao's "Little Red Book". Should we assign great respect to these works solely because they "changed the course of history"? Of course not.
Another thing: if you believe so passionately in the Bible, how do you reconcile "mo"'s multitudinous false prophecies with Deut. 18:20-22? (look it up, I'm out of characters) l8r.
ruf
(reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 08:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Neither the Al-Quran (to get it's name exactly right in Arabic for your convenience) nor the vedas (I'm not even going to capitalise that book as I wouldn't even consider it to be a "holy" book! I've lived in India & seen what the vedas & the bhagavad gita & other of their "holy" books have done to that land! The ignorance & darkness of those poor blighted people who follow those, (I don't even want to use the word 'principles') whatever they are--they don't really even know themselves, is pitiful!) nor any of the other so-called "holy books", have ever been popularly refered to as the "Good Book"! I think that says enough in itself!
As to the rest of your comment, I'm not going to indulge you with a reply! Sorry! (reply to this comment) |
| | From ruffneck
Friday, July 19, 2002, 10:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Arabic refresher course: "Al" - roughly equivalent to "The" - so in your exact words: (translated) The-The Quran. Another ignorant, euro-centric christian. Sad. I wonder: do you say "JJT-time" too? (jesus job time time) redundancy. :-)
As for not indulging me with a reply, you really could have skipped the scatological nonsense about Literature and answered me the only important question I asked in my last post. Seeing as how you can't be bothered to reply, I'll spell out just why you can't answer. Here's why: According to the bible, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be speaking in God's name and be wrong if you are a true prophet. The rule is VERY narrow, and leaves no room for "interpretation". You are either true or false, no shades of grey like you seem to think. Here's the piece of scripture you wouldn't comment on:
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
And don't give me that "he never said 'thus saith the lord'" nonsense. Read "40 days" and defend your position behind a false prophet. Or aren't you person enuf? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From JoeH
Monday, August 05, 2002, 11:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
wel from that verse I'd say it's pretty clear that Berg was a false prophet. Not surprisingly, ******* stoops to name calling and insulting his detractors's knowledge (a rather curious method of argumentation) because he is powerless against the scripture he so strongly believes in. I guess the children of darkness really are wiser than the children of light! Yeah, systemites rule!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Saturday, August 17, 2002, 10:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Please Joe, get your facts straight first! The only name I called in that post was Osama-Bin-Laden & that's his REAL name; but I doubt he's reading from this site or if he'd even be too insulted by that post. If you mean the insult to ruffneck, I'm sure he wouldn't be insulted by a real well paid job (I mean if he was REALLY offered LOTS of money for translating) seeing as he so far hasn't hesitated to stoop so low as to malign Christians for free, so why not do a bit of dirty (or maybe he could even help OBL CLEAN UP his image) work for the highest bidder. And if he isn't such an expert in Arabic, then it serves him right for trying to pass himself off as one, ie: making an unnecessary dig at my admittedly limited knowledge of Arabic. By the way, I did know that "Al" means "the" in Arabic! I went to a muslim school for a while in India as a young boy (around the same time as the "become one" vision of Dad's) & had a number of Arabic friends in India, & some fairly recently when I was in the Ukraine. It was just an oversight that happened in the speed of trying to keep up with lots of replies to various posts.
As far as Berg (or 'Dad' as I prefer to call him, if you don't mind) being a "false prophet", I think it's way too early to pass any judgement on that one. Besides the fact that I don't believe he was, for your sake I'd wait a bit. Some of his time scales or interpretations, may have been a proven to have been a bit off, but that doesn't necessarily make him "false".. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Saturday, August 17, 2002, 10:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
...or his inclinations necessarily wrong. Maybe he'd have done better to have been a bit more careful with his exact date predictions, & exact interpretations of events. But he himself said that a lot of it was speculation & discussing what COULD happen. Only GOD really knows whats definately gonna happen, 'cause He's the one who makes or allows them to happen! As far as the prediction about California in the "40 days", like I said his time scale might have been a little off, but just because it hasn't happened YET doesn't mean it WONT (there ain't anyone here in Calif, is there?!)! The "fat lady" may just not have sung yet! If you know the story of Jonah from where the 40 days idea comes from, you know that Jonah got real discouraged with the Lord about the fact that his prophecy (that he had definately gotten straight from the Lord, & had to actually be FORCED to deliver to Ninevah) didn't materialise as he had predicted. God gave him a very good & wise explanation for that (that gives a little bit of a clue about the Nature of God--Love!) & it had to do with repentance & mercy! You might benefit from looking it up & reading it! If you know anything at all about the story of Ninevah, their repentance didn't last longer than a few generations; & God had to send another prophet to them, Nahum, to warn them of their destruction, from which, in that case, there was NO repreive! They were destroyed very shortly thereafter! So, don't be too quick to judge. Examine yourself first! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Monday, July 15, 2002, 12:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
What diatribes?
May I remind you what Claire, speaking for the Family, had to say about this site in the above article which she posted herself?
"I believe you have made an admirable effort through your site to assist former members in the process of “moving on” to more constructive models for their lives. There has been a real endeavor to bring about a balanced approach, and I believe, a sincere desire to represent the truth, eschewing the distortions, embellishments and falsehoods that some have regrettably resorted to."
If you don't agree with her, bring it up with her directly.
Jules (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From *******
Monday, July 15, 2002, 12:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe so, but we're not in a court of law & you're not Judges; even though it seems like every last on of you are trying to set yourselves up as one! Pseudo-legal law practice is what I'm seeing here (more commonly known as "Kangaroo-courts"!)! Isn't it illegal to practise law without a licence (or is that just for medicine?!)?! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ex-SGA, JD
Saturday, August 17, 2002, 16:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, Mr. "*******," I wonder what Legal Ethics course you took, or what exam you passed. Maybe you're basing the above simply on a lifetime in the COG. I hate to break it to you that the latter does not actually qualify you! In fact, from my 4 years immersed in the world of law, what the COG teaches you about law is -- to put it vulgarly but bluntly -- ass-backward). In case you're wondering, I myself took a Legal Ethics course while I was earning my Ivy-League law degree (which I got honors on), and I passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination some time ago. It covers (as the "Multistate" part indicates), a LOT of jurisdictions! It does not cover any supposed violation of "Pseudo-legal law practice," which does not ring a bell to me (they apparently sanction it in whatever jurisdiction you are expounding on, which may be somewhere down under, since you mention the kangaroos --however, my Legal Philosophy prof was from that area of the world, and he never mentioned them). But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe you are knowledgeable about a jurisdiction I didn't cover (hey, maybe it's a zoo, with kangaroos of course, and for variety, fish, sheep, "bye-bye" birdies, amazing cats, spiders, uneager beavers, goats, wolves, snakes -- and asses). Or hey, maybe you're admitted to practice in "Space City." Do you need warrants to search see-through houses there? "Indecent exposure" must not even be a misdemeanor there, seeing the typical attire. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | From neez
Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 07:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey ******** you listen to 'Judge Jules' too!!cool man. he Played a 4 fuckin hour live set bro.. fcuked me up! awesome man.. totally awesome!
I'll send you some CDs dude. Give me your address..(I'll chuck some buds in there for ya too ya sly bastard)
& you can swear if you really really feel u fuckin have to Lord Uncle ******** Sir
ok ********* just get it all out son..
& promise you won't smoke all this shit at once dude alright..?? it came with one of them big 'beware frail minds' stickers on it. But you should be right..
you're completly open minded after all (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From *******
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 05:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
When I said "check-mate" I meant that for you to write something as vulgar & offensive to me as the one to which The reply in question was directed, & still insist that Family writings are immoral would be rank hypocrisy, which it seems you have no problems with living with! AS far a "getting a life" (fucking or otherwise), I have all the life I need for the time being thanks! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Lance
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 06:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
You said check-mate because you are a retard with an undeveloped mind. It's just that simple. "check-mate" means in all definitions, that you have me cornered; unable to escape the verbatim that you’ve so casually volleyed in my direction hoping to trap me in some stupor that only you can identify with.
Listen buddy, I am far from trapped, and if I could expound a moment on the knee-deep bullshit of your rhetoric I would say that your argument takes you nowhere, and if you want to speak in reference to chess I would say that you are lone pawn that is still convinced it can take my queen; refusing to forfeit.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 08:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Again, you're ASSuming what's in my mind! Perhaps I should have said "check" instead of "check-mate" because I assumed (perhaps that was my mistake) that you might have a little bit of a conscience & get the point that to hypocritically accuse someone else of writng "vile" or "immoral" things, & to turn around & indulge in the same thing yourself was immoral in-itself, & would only make you look the worse in-front of any fair-minded individual! Like I said, I realise now that you seem to heave no problem living with your own hypocrisy & seem to have gotten yourself out of check with the only move left to you (seeing as I hardly expected you [& you have not disappointed my expectaions] to apologise or back down), & that appears to be (in my opinion) further infamy! OK, lets take this thing to it's logical (I emphasise LOGICAL) conclusion & see who has to forfeit!--Agreed?! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Lance
Friday, July 19, 2002, 08:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Again, you're ASSuming what's in my mind! I never assumed what in your mind; only that you’re either a retard or making a good point to argue like one. Perhaps I should have said "check" instead of "check-mate" because I assumed (perhaps that was my mistake) that you might have a little bit of a conscience(by conscience you mean the internal sense of what is right and wrong that governs somebody’s thoughts and actions, urging him or her to do right rather than wrong?) & get the point that to hypocritically (by hypocritical you mean somebody who gives a false appearance of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings? How do you know what I believe in?) accuse someone else of writng(looks like you misspelled a word) "vile"(I said “insane”, not vile) or "immoral" things, & to turn around & indulge in the same thing yourself was immoral(correction: “is immoral”) (Moral: involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individuals should behave. Immoral: contrary to accepted moral principles… Perhaps you could explain how my words fit under the category of immoral? And please make it fit the definition I have given.)in-itself, (it can only be “ in itself”, not in-itself) & would only make you look the worse in-front (in front) of any fair-minded (fair minded) individual! Like I said, I realise (realize) now that you seem to heave no problem living with your own hypocrisy(that’s the second time you’ve used that word, which by the way is used totally out of context) & seem to have gotten yourself out of check with the only move left to you (seeing as I hardly expected you [& you have not disappointed my expectaions] (expectations)to apologise (apologize)or back down), & that appears to be (in my opinion) further infamy! (Infamy: 1. Notoriety; the disgrace to some ones reputation caused by an infamous act or behavior. 2. Shameful or criminal conduct: shameful or criminal conduct or character. Now how is it that my conversation with you thus far been a shameful, criminal act?) OK, lets (let's) take this thing to it's (its) logical (I emphasise (emphasize) LOGICAL) (Logical: 1. Sensible and based on facts, clear rational thought, and sensible reasoning. 2. Able to think rationally, able to think sensibly and come to a rational conclusion based on facts rather then emotion.) conclusion & see who has to forfeit!— Agreed?!
There is nothing “rational” about your argument at all; in fact I think it would be rational for you to give us at least a name of some sort, but you would much rather hide behind your poorly placed keystrokes; spouting out nonsense in a fabulous effort to put your foot in your own mouth, -which has work fabulously thus far. This entire response to me that I have shown above is completely ludicrous and only serves to have me pity any current or future offspring; fearing that they might inherit your poor sense to discern what is “rational.” Perhaps if you dropped your belligerent crusade and actually tried to get to know a few of us you would figure out that you could present whatever argument you have in a more respectful and productive manner over time, that is what I would consider a rational approach. But you would much rather fire a few dimwitted volleys in the hope that it will make you believe the lie that you have been struggling with your entire life. The real truth is that you attack us because you fear that we are right, and you can’t stand the idea that you have been living a lie; something right in front of your nose yet you have been too blind to see it.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | From Lance
Thursday, July 18, 2002, 06:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, so it's apparent that you not only don't have any style, but no sense of humor as well. For your information, if you could not see through the humor in my response that I was your "judge" and condemning you to be castrated then you should very well be castrated -or worse, for not "having a good laugh at yourself". For Christ sake lighten the fuck up dude! you need to realize that there are people in this world you are going to mock you, it is up to you to ask why they are doing so and then open your eyes to reality. But until that time comes your nothing more then an idiot who wants to take a shot at being the new family spokesperson. (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Friday, July 19, 2002, 09:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Forgive me if I don't "lighten the fuck up" to the idea of "being 'emasclulated' (which by the way is spelt 'emasculated', without the auxilary 'l' you have placed between the 'c' & the 'u'--try checking your own spelling or typos before so vehemently correcting mine!) by a pack of rabid squirels" while you "smoke a 'fatty' while gleefully pondering the thought of you trying to fuck christ (again that word refers to a Deity & in any literature or writing of any kind, both religious or secular, it should be capitalised--Christ!) without your precious testes"! You haven't even lightened up to the idea of me just suggesting "check-mate", & yet you still want me to lighten up to what you are suggesting?! As far as "reality", it depends on your perception of "reality" based on your experience on the outcome of reality! The "reality" of a person being condemned to spend the rest of their lives in some god-forsaken dungeon, for example, has not stopped many brave men from attempting (often successfully) to escape & start new lives for themselves! Faith in God is something that some people would (& do) argue is against reality, because it contradicts their perception of reality & their perception of the outcome of that reality! We live in the moment & only know what will happen in the next moment because of either what we've experienced & know to expect, or because of what we believe will happen based on what we've been told or led to believe will happen...2 B continued..... (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Lance
Friday, July 19, 2002, 16:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all your metaphors stink, and I am not obligated to capitalize christ, you see I am a free thinking individual who chooses to not capitalize something(in this case a "deity) that I do not believe in. Yes you heard me right! I am an empirical agnostic.
Would you please stop fucking around and answer my questions correctly, as I have attempted thus far to extend to you this courtesy. I shall repeat my questions again.
8. Moral: involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individuals should behave. Immoral: contrary to accepted moral principles… Perhaps you could explain how my words fit under the category of immoral? And please make it fit the definition I have given.)
14. (Infamy: 1. Notoriety; the disgrace to some ones reputation caused by an infamous act or behavior. 2. Shameful or criminal conduct: shameful or criminal conduct or character. Now how is it that my conversation with you thus far been a shameful, criminal act?)
17. There is nothing “rational” about your argument at all; in fact I think it would be rational for you to give us at least a name of some sort, but you would much rather hide behind your poorly placed keystrokes; spouting out nonsense in a fabulous effort to put your foot in your own mouth, -which has work fabulously thus far. This entire response to me that I have shown above is completely ludicrous and only serves to have me pity any current or future offspring; fearing that they might inherit your poor sense to discern what is “rational.” Perhaps if you dropped your belligerent crusade and actually tried to get to know a few of us you would figure out that you could present whatever argument you have in a more respectful and productive manner over time, that is what I would consider a rational approach. But you would much rather fire a few dimwitted volleys in the hope that it will make you believe the lie that you have been struggling with your entire life. The real truth is that you attack us because you fear that we are right, and you can’t stand the idea that you have been living a lie; something right in front of your nose yet you have been too blind to see it.
And further more, you deserve to be emasculated by a pack of rabid squirrels while I sit back and smoke a fatty contemplating the irony of you trying to fuck christ without your precious testes.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From C
Monday, July 15, 2002, 19:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, I’ve heard about enough from this idiot *******! I didn’t at first deem him worth my time to reply but when he goes insulting the people here on this website about whining, I draw the line.
Don’t come here idiot and pretend to pass judgment on anyone. These people are victims and they have not only the sympathy of those of us who have experienced the torture they endured, they have our respect! They are brave and strong, something cowards like you that hide behind keyboard and call yourself by typographical symbols would never understand.
And I laugh at your juvenile understanding of the law! You’re so ignorant it’s amusing! An attorney can object until they’re blue in the face concerning any matter at all, and it won’t make a bit of difference in the case or effect the issues at bar. Run along now and go pester someone else because you’re in over your head here.
And just because you don’t know what exactly is happening concerning the efforts to bring the Family to justice, doesn’t make any difference in the long run. Do you really think people involved in this effort are going to lay out the entire investigation for you just because you ask? You truly live in another world, one of ignorance and delusion.
I have more to say to you concerning your ridiculous, over-played accusations against the United States and the men and women who serve in its armed forces, but I will make those remarks in another section. Let me say this, however, paranoid conspiracy theorist like you who have nothing better to do all day but criticize the men and women who have bravely fought and died for the freedom we, and you, if you are American, enjoy everyday don’t deserve the sacrifices those heroes have made.
You’re not half the man or woman they are. You are a coward and a fool, and more than likely a child molester if you’ve spent any real time in that sick cult. You deserve only contempt for your uninformed, ignorant comments. Yes, we have free speech, but it was paid for with the blood of those service men and women you have ignorantly called war criminals. As far as I’m concerned, you deserve to rot in jail with other traitors to this country like John Walker Lindh. If I ran this country, you would. But fortunately for you, the men and women with whom you presume to discredit do, and they are better men and women than you or me.
I personally know men and women who risk their lives everyday in this war on terror. I see the sacrifices they make. I am also aware of many of those who have given their lives and able bodies protecting the human rights of those in foreign countries. Don’t talk to me of war crimes when the body of a U.S. soldier is drug through the streets in Africa after he was killed in a mission to stop an African warlord who was raiding U.N. emergency food relief. I could go on and on with stories of Americans killed in action protecting the human rights of citizens of foreign countries, but such time is only wasted on an ignorant old fool like you!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From cm
Monday, July 15, 2002, 18:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
*******,
I think you missed the introduction to this website. It is pretty clear that this is not a court of law but rather a support group for ex-members. No one here needs proof to know what happened to them personally. I do not need a lawyer to believe that most of the members of this site were sexually, emotionally and physically abused because I was too and published "MO letters" supported this abuse. Surely you read the "Davidito Book". If and when we do file a suit, there will be plenty of evidence regarding the abuse of COG leadership and there are a few licensed attorneys who will gladly file the suit. I do not know where you find any legal practice on this site (actual or pseudo) because it is not a court of law, it is a web site. We are here to discuss our personal experiences. It just so happens that these experiences were less than pleasureable for most (read all) of us.
Are you SGA?? Why are you reading this site anyways? From the little I remember of the Bible, Psalms 1 says that you should not be "sitting in the seat of the scornful." Is not your time as a professional family member not better spent saving souls or washing dishes?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 07:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes I am an SGA, are you?! Reagarding Psalms 1, the scorn which you suggest may be coming from me is directed at the scorn I see coming from this site! It's not a crime to scorn scorn (if you get my meaning)! That scripture you quoted refers to those scorning that which is good! As far as "we are here to discuss our personal experiences". Fair enough, what are YOUR personal experiences (real, not imagined if you please)! I thought I read someone saying here that none was going to get into details of what happened to them here on this site! That would seem to contradict what you are saying. And if that's the case then what do you discuss, in real termes? It's quite convenient to sit around saying "Oh, so many bad things happened to me [albeit I'm wondering if some of the stuff you may be subconscientiously refering to may actually be "borrowed" from accounts (reliable or unreliable I cannot say yet, 'cause no-one seems to be saying anything concrete) of your peers, & doctored up & embelished over time in your minds to apply to you!], but I'm not going to go into details!" That conveniently puts you in a position where nothing can be verified & you don't have to come up with any facts; but yet you can still go on riding the pony of sympathy from each other & milking condolences for all their worth! I don't mean to be irreverent in saying that, or to belittle anything which anyone may have gone through I'm saying that without VERIFIABLE "facts" you really aren't going anywhere!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From cm
Friday, July 19, 2002, 14:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear ***********************, Your lack of deductive skill has caused you to miss the point of my use of Psalm 1. I did mean to suggest that the "scorn" is coming from the members of this site and that as if you feel that it is misdirected scorn, you should refrain from multiplying the "sin" and thereby be "sitting in the seat of the scornful."
I did post some "VERIFIABLE facts" in a post near the begginning of this page for your comments which you have chosen not to respond to (As we are all busy I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you missed the post and did not conviently ignore it to be able to continue to with your dismissive ranting). (reply to this comment) |
| | From Tim
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 13:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
You didn't answer the question: Have you read the Davidito book? Did you agree with it or not?
In the "Mo letter" called "Breakdown", Berg said that the "Lord" opened his eyes, and showed him that the Israelis were not human, they were demons. Do you, ******* belive that Jews are demons?
Do you belive that Martin Luther King was a evil man who wanted to start a race war? Do you belive that the Confederates should have won the Civil war? Do you belive that Hitler was God's inspired tool?
The Family taught all these things, how can you call these "Flaws"??? How can you talk about the "Great education" that we recived? Are you smoking crack?
Also, why do you keep flinging scriptures around? You might as well go on a Mormon website and start quoting the Koran.
"Brave, brave Sir *******, brave Sir ******* ran away, when debate reared it's ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled"
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | From JohnnieWalker
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 08:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
"without VERIFIABLE "facts" you really aren't going anywhere"
I say the same to you. You want to prove us liars, gossipers and moaners? Then present us with facts. Cut and paste if you have to, but with all the accusations you have thrown at us, I'm sure you must have SOME facts readily at hand. Facts, remember, not just twisted versions of what you THINK we said.
You sound very self-righteous in a lot of your posts. Do you want me to pray for the Lord to help you with that, too. I'd be glad to! (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 09:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are welcome to pray for anything you like!
Let me remind you that YOU (again to prevent misunderstanding I'll clarify that the "YOU" I use here refers to those of you who are making these accusations against the Family) are the ones who are trying to pass of accusations as facts without concrete proof! In any court (I realise of-course that we're not in one now, but the principle still holds true!) the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, to prove BEYOND reasonable doubt the validity of their allegations, since the defendants are protected by the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (which are the laws of jurisprudence, I stand corrected on my previous typo 'preponderance')! All a defense attorney has to do is provide REASONABLE DOUBT (which actually isn't really laying ground-work at all, simply digging away the ground from under the opposition!), to get an acquital! Put that in your pipe & smoke it! Now the burden of proof is back in your court where it belongs! (reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 11:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
OK, I'll pray for you. Let me know if you feel it's made a difference, OK?
From where do you get the idea that we are trying to "pass of accusations as facts without concrete proof" -- just from what's posted on this site? Come on, I'm sure you're smarter than that! But seriously, what would you consider "concrete proof" for some of these accusations. I'm sure that if you were a judge, you would require some kind of evidence to any accusation or statement. What facts would have to be brought up to satisfy your judegment?
We're not stupid (not that you said we are). We know that rumors don't hold water in court. We wouldn't even think about taking legal action if we didn't think we had more than a fraction of a chance at winning. None of us are rushing into this (again, I'm not saying you said this). We're taking our time, making sure our case is tight, all the facts are straight, and the foundation sound.
I'm sure you will feel an urge to tell us of scripture saying that our house is built on sand and will be ground to powder and dust....but have you ever thought that the Family might not have such a sure foundation as they think they have. What kind of an establishment can be built upon lies, cover up and a lack of accountabiliy? The Family may have started off in the right direction but I belive it has certainly fulfilled it's own "Builders Beware" and "Bahai Temple Prophecy". As such, their foundation has begun to crumble.
Let me ask you this. You seem very sure that the Family is God's chosen people for the Endtime. What would you do if the Family suddenly came to an end, either from lack of new membership or Maria dying (Berg prophecied and current prophecies say that she is going to be alive when Jesus returns) or from being officially disbanded or whatever. What would you do then? Have you thought about that before? What did you come up with?
I know you might think that because thay are "God's chosen people" that God would not allow that to happen. But then that would put you in the same category you've put us in when you said that we see everything in black and white.
What if the Family is not God's chosen people and you had just been following man all along?
No rhetoric and counter questions, please. Just a straight answer is all I need. I know you're capable of that. And there's no need to take an aggressive tone either. I'll believe you.
"Nameless", you've suggested to us that we should agree to disagree with the Family. I think we will take that advice and use it in your case. Can you agree to disagree with us without constantly berating us for our "folly"? You can go on your merry way believing that we are fools and we we will do the same about you. OK? What do you say? Is it a deal? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 08:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dude,
That's enough I think. Please kindly take your nonsense elsewhere. People have detailed many of their experiences on this site. Something, I should tell you, that is difficult to do. You, my friend, will not even use a proper pseudonym. If all you want to do is demean, insult and not even debate a topic properly, then please go away.
Why are you even here? If you think we are fools, then aren't you supposed to "go from the presence of a foolish man"? Surely you have better things to do with your time.
Jules (reply to this comment) |
| | From *******
Wednesday, July 17, 2002, 08:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you think that what written on this site is nonesense (of-course you could go into details as you suggested, of what you consider to be nonesense, ie: I agree with point A but not point B, etc, etc.) & you wish me to take it elsewhere, that's fine too! "Elsewhere" however the "nonesense" wouldn't be the same, 'cause what I've written here was in response to & to try to sort out in my mind between what I considered to be NONESENSE here, or to see if there were any FACTS lurking in the misty shadows here or there! I don't know what you would consider 'debating a topic PROPERLY' would mean. Is it a debate where YOU get the upperhand with your wit & make sure that you 'win' the debate (however that wouldn't really make it a valid "debate", if the outcome is already pre-determined!)
I DON'T think you're all fools, (however certain individuals I've had the "pleasure" of encountering ['verbally' or 'keyboardally'] would have a hard time convincing me that they specifically don't come under that category), but if you're admitting folly then why persist in it! Like i've said before, I'm sorry for anything any of you might have gone through & I'm not belittling the pain you say you've experienced as a result. But some of the things that are being suggested here are (if you don't mind me saying) in my opinion way over the top! You cannot fight what you call unreasonable behaviour with yet more unreasonable behaviour! How much better to forgive! I support PEACE & PEACE MAK-ING/ERS!! (reply to this comment) |
| | from Jules
July 15, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | from JohnnieWalker
July 15, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | from Craven
July 13, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | from Albatross
July 13, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | | from cm
July 13, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | from Cosmicblip
July 13, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | from Rock
July 13, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | | from C
July 13, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from dave
July 12, 2002 - This comment is in the main site | from Albatross
July 12, 2002 - This comment is in the main site |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]