Thank you kmanaveen and thank you MCN. So you believe the god of the BKs and God are one and the same thing ... so is he wrong about the 5,000 years?
I think you are sort of avoiding the issue here, MCN, which is why I am picking you up on it. I asked you how you mentally negotiated believing that the god of the BKs and God are one but not believing in the 5,000 Years ... which would seem to be deny the most defining aspect of Brahma Kumarism. For example, can God really be ignorant or wrong?
I would say the most defining aspect of being an ex-BK is the denial of or reject that the god of the BKs could possibly be God. You joined as an ex-BK but if you still believe, then I think you are not. You may have stopped going to the center every day but if you believe, you are still in. You're just a bad, lazy or disobedient BK ... Is this fair to say?
--------- --------- ---------
Relating to discussing specific individual and the question of anonymity ... all this is is a discussion forum. It's out meeting place ... our pub or cafe ... our living room where we get together and chat. And that is all we are doing.
Do the BKs not get together and chat about specific individuals? Of course they do. They do on several levels ... across their unofficial international gossip vines and, officially, in specific service meetings.
We know the BKWSU study this site, speculate who is who and, if and when they think they have identified someone, they have targeted them or their family members and spread false rumours about them. They do so to discredit the actual fact. Likewise their use of legal violence against us to remove our right to privacy and deliberately expose individuals in order to attack them further.
Why do they do so? Simple, the level of consciousness most BKs are at is fairly low. They are still just ordinary human beings and for ordinary human chit chat and gossip is far more easy to digest and enjoyable than dealing with big ethical issues, especially those that might challenge their faith or leadership's credibility. Or even god. It's notable that for 75 years of its existence, the so called Spiritual University has been pretty much devoid of ethics and the discussion and application of ethics.
Again, you reduce raising ethical issues about specific individuals to "biting back". That is a defence a trickster might use.
Done in the right frame of mind, discussing specific individuals' conduct within the context of their religion is absolutely reasonable. Especially where it might protect others (public interest), or bring about change in those individuals' behaviour.
If an individual is seen to be promoting Brahma Kumarism but contradicting its principles and even enjoying a high status or privilege within the cult, then they are at least first class hypocrite and, at worst, mentally ill or harmful to *both* the cult and others.
An abstract discussion cannot achieve anything.
In the old days, the BKs used to have a "Court of Indra" where such issues or faults used to be raised. They need a modern equivalent, e.g. an internal court system or ombudsperson, where problems can be formally raised and recorded, and judgements and if necessary punishments and compensations handed out.
At the end of the day, you are a BK supporter which equates to a BK defender. Your own conduct or respect towards polite requests for information is in question. Therefore your intentions are suspect.
Someone has raised the issue of transparency/anonymity in another thread and so I will answer it
there.