Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

for discussing revisions in the history of the Brahma Kumaris and updating information about the organisation
  • Message
  • Author

clearofBK

BK supporter

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2014

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post05 Oct 2014

If they get fooled by the BK propaganda they cannot be trusted.

How do you know? Just because ex-l told you so or did you actually go and check ? Did you try to edit and see for yourself?

Essentially what you seem to be saying is that Wikipedia becomes more trustworthy when they allow ex-l's propaganda?
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10661
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Brahma Kumari followers on Facebook

Post06 Oct 2014

We are only talking about the Wikipedia's BKWSU page.
Admin wrote:Member 'clearofBK' edited previously as 'clearernow' and 'moreclearnow'. See topic: Clearernow Moreclearnow.
    Clearernow aka Moreclearnow's second account has now also been deactivated until they offer to provide a practical service to either other BKs or this forum.

    A deactivation is not the same as a banning. Clearnow/Moreclearnow is welcome to have their account re-activated by accepting our terms and conditions.

That's funny, you come on to complain about me having to keep rejoining the Wikipedia time and time again because the Brahma Kumari adherents keep blocking me by snitching to admins, and here you are doing the same.
    Are you one of the pro-BK editors on the Wikipedia?
Have you accepting our terms and conditions and are you ready to help us and others this time?

One of your original profiles says,
I still take full advantage of BK priciples in practical life and not here to defend on behalf of BKWSU.

Do you still believe in BKism? Or which bits do you still believe in? Are you essentially a BK who just doesn't go to the centre every day? I find it hard to image you get up at 4am everyday which I would define as "following the principles (Maryadas)". I am sorry, I cannot remember if you answered this in one of your previous re-incarnations.

You say, "challenge me" but really what you did last time round and starting to do so again is attempt to 'damage or discredit me' illogically or unreasonably. There is a difference. You'll lose if you head off into such a negative spiral. That's Karma for you ...

To "challenge me" would be, for example, to say, "prove Lekhraj Kirpalani was born in 1884, he was born in 1976!"

This is one of the many silly things the BK adherents are constantly reverting on the Wikipedia. Lekhraj Kirpalani WAS born in 1884. His birth certificate exists and the BKs know it but, yet they are invested in the false myth that he was 60 in 1936 and hence want to make it 1876.

He was not, it was not, and Shiva did not possess me in 1936. There is no mention of Shiva in the BK religion until after 1955. You have been lied to by the BK leaders.

I go onto the Wikipedia and correct it to 1884 ... by doing so I am serving Truth, and the greater good ... and the BKs revert it 1876 time and time again, promoting falsehood ... weird.

Likewise, to "challenge me" would be to claim spirit mediumship and possession are not central to BKism. This is something else the BK team is desperate to hide. Why? Is it false? Of course not. For decades they referred to Lekhraj Kirpalani as the medium of God on their official letterhead paper. Why do they want to hide it?

I am not going to discuss the Wikipedia generally here as it is not what we are here for. If you are interested, then try reading ... List of Websites Critical of Wikipedia and joining the wikipediareview.com forum. Many of them are ex- "Wiki Cult" members and the dynamic between them and the Wikipedia is similar to other cult/ex-cult dialogues. Some of the discussion is very interesting. I think you'll find the idea of the Wikipedia as a cult is quite common. Argue over with them, not me.

The Wikipedia is fine if you stick to obscure, non-controversial or technical matters such as Trams in Tashkent, or Lists of Cockroaches species, but if you stray into a variety of topic areas, including cults, anything to do with nationalistic disputes, US military history etc, it get very crazy, very nasty, very illogical quickly.

The BKs actions or behaviour on the Wikipedia is something else. It is not normal, natural and certainly not moral.

My IP address was blocked (originally, I was not banned) because I reported that a BK was carrying out a Federal crime to Wiki-war for his cult.

Was I wrong to do so?

Spiritually, if you believe in things like karma etc, the BKs are doing themselves a great amount of damage by promoting falsehoods and operating according to the way they are. It's not "spiritual". Neither really is the BKWSU and BKism.

Genuine "Spirituality" starts with an unswerving desire and commitment to the truth, often at a very high personal price. The BKs cannot say that. They are not genuinely spiritual. They - leaders and followers - are dabbling in psychicism and do not really know what they are doing. It is much worse for followers as they have been misled by the leaders for so long and are quickly confused, misled manipulated and exploited by them.

Go ahead ... challenge that view.
Previous

Return to The BKWSU