Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year Cycle

Classic posts chosen by the admins of xBKChat.com and the users of this website
  • Message
  • Author
Offline
User avatar

button slammer

PBK

  • Posts: 205
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post27 Dec 2012

I challenge any BK to explain to me why the scholars' view of history is wrong, and give me the evidence to support the BKs' concept of the 5000 Year Cycle. "Baba says ..." is not evidence. If extraordinary claims are made, extraordinary evidence is required. Why can we not send a trance messenger up to Baba to request a rational basis for his 5000 Year Cycle. If there is no rational basis, there can be no Cycle.

OK, well let's sort out a rational basis for The Cycle.

I totally agree with the good doctor in that if claims are made then evidence should be made to back up those claims. Personally, when I heard the lesson of The Cycle during basic course my 1st reaction was 'excellent, God's introduction and explanation will be totally unique'. However, why should this Gyan be seen as 'extraordinary claims' required', certainly an aspect of common sense underlies much of the Gyan.

Science says 13.5 billion years ago the universe came into existence from what? From nothing. Several billion years later 'life' came into being from what? From random elements and circumstances. This 'life' is described as what? A 'simple cell' There is no such thing as a simple cell. Myriads of chemicals and structures have to operate precisely and in unity from out of nothing, not to mention how this cell 'knows' what to consume and that its sustenance was readily available at that moment ... etc. To be sure, for anything to exist, everything in the universe has to simultaneously exist in order to support that existence, without exception. There is nothing random about our world. The DNA of any single cell can stretch to about 6ft. There are billions of cells in the body, all the DNA in our bodies end to end can go around the earth several times, if not more. If a single strand of the DNA is out then the cell dies. Life is extraordinarily complex and varied, nothing can exist by itself.

Now then, science can say with authority what happened billions of years ago, but cannot say what will happen in the world next week! Hardly anyone remembers exactly what they were doing or thinking several months ago. How can anyone intellectually comprehend in an accurate way a humanoid evolution of several millions of years?
The civilizations of the Middle-East during this period were nothing like the Brahma Kumaris' image of the Silver-Aged world of the Deities Rama and Sita. The civilizations of Greece, Egypt, Sumeria, Assyria etc. all had temples and worshipped their gods and goddesses. They had military technology; bronze and iron swords and spears, bows and arrows, helmets and body armour, horse-drawn war chariots etc. Examples can be seen today in the British Museum. They were constantly at war with their neighbours. They certainly did not have their babies by yoga-power, without having sexual relations. They did not fly in vimans. It was not 'heaven'.

A brief study of any Murlis backed up by historical proof shows that 'heaven' can simultaneously exist in hell. Unless heaven is established in front of the world how will the world come to know of it? In Karachi, in the early days, a sample of heaven was prepared. Rivers of blood flowed during the partition but the inmates of Om Mandli reached safety and remained undisturbed by the violence. Peace can exist during chaos and upheaval.

The Silver Age souls are described as what in any case? Warriors. When the soul of Abraham and its followers incarnated at the end of the Silver Age what happened? The The Kshatriyas drove them out of Bharat.

''The people of Islam are chased away. In which direction? Towards the Arab countries. People of whichever religious land arrive, the land for them emerges above from the ocean well before. So, first of all the religious land of Islam [i.e.] the Arab countries, Egypt and so on rise above from the ocean first. They (the people of Islam) are chased to that place.

Their adulteration can’t flourish so much here. They become free after going there. Who? The people of Islam. They become so free, that marriages start to be arranged even between Brothers and Sisters born of the same parents (sage bhāī bahen)
''.

- VCD* 1139 http://www.PBKs.info
Just suppose for a moment that the 5000 Year Cycle is accurate. The Copper Age must start after 493 BC. That implies that Abraham must come to start the Jewish religion no earlier than 493 BC. But we know that the Middle-East was controlled by the Persians from the fall of Babylon to Cyrus in 539 BC, until the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great in 336 - 323 BC. If Abraham had come in 493, the whole of Jewish History: Moses and the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the kings Saul, David and Solomon; the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel, the conquest of Israel by Assyria, the Exile in Babylon, must all have happened between 493 and 323 BC - about 170 years. Impossible! In fact Cyrus released the Jews from their exile in Babylon in 538 BC, allowing them to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple.

Well, do you suppose for one moment that any historian from any part of history is unbiased and without religious or political leanings? Did they write independent 'as it happened reports?'' Of course not. Historians are completely controlled. Whatever was the history of one century is changed the next according to the dominant rulers, Kings are vainglorious, e.g. the Taj Muhal, purported to be built by the Mugals. Now research is showing the Taj Mahal was built centuries earlier by Hindu Kings, and was a temple to Shiva.

If we look at Herodotus, Greek researcher and 'storyteller' it is known that his 'history' was often taken from several sources, from where did his sources get their details from? History is approximate at best and just plain vainglorious propaganda at worst. What is history anyway? It is the record of sorrow and misery. There is no name or trace of Satyug or Tretayug as they are natural harmonious worlds, without buildings artificial clothes, or the need of education, military conquest, agriculture ... In the days of happiness the time goes quickly, no-one notices the time.
However I realise that time must be allowed, after 'vinash' for the 'Advance Party' to prepare for the Golden Age. Shri Krishna and Radhe have to be born and grow up. If the duration of the Confluence Age is reckoned as 100 years, from Baba's coming in 1936, to the Coronation of Lakshmi and Narayan in 2036, the formal inauguration of the Golden Age, which Baba calls 1.1.1.

Sri Krisna and Radhe would have to be born during the Confluence Age for the world to recognize their status. The date 1.1.1. really refers to the end of effort making and what results any soul has attained according to its efforts.
Deities are simple 'buddus'/fools they have no concept of The Cycle. the calculation of the good doctor is based on the asumptions/interpretations of the Dadis/Didis senior BKs. They are entirely incorrect. Detailed explanations of these points can come later.
There are professors of Ancient Greek, Assyriology, Egyptology, etc., in the major universities, and Curators at the British Museum, who could tell us quite a lot about the first half of the first millennium BC, that is, the period from 1000 BC to 500 BC

Whilst I can appreciate the effort of the learned scholars and curators of the various academies to create some meaningful world view for us I cannot accept their views and opinions as final. To begin with, many 'experts' disagree with each other, orthodox research receives greater funding than independent approaches, many findings are beyond the spectrum of their expertise. Ancient artefacts/structures shown to technical engineers can reveal acute scientific and mathematical understanding. The same objects shown to curators/professors are described as 'religious', meaning they have no idea what half the writings and objects in their collections are, if indeed half, and, of course, what about the ancient global phenomenon of Pyramid culture? and other megalithic structures. Built by unknown peoples. Structures placed on significant global alignments. Structures made from colossal stone blocks some weighing hundreds of tons. Millions of blocks placed within fractions of an inch. Do you think the architects of these structures were, as the good doctor describes, content to ride around in metal helmets and chariots killing each other? Where does the good doctor mention this in his historical diatribe? This academic history is absolute rubbish, and has no answers for ancient advanced global civilization. Nothing of any value or meaning has come out of it.

Now with IT technology the real research and development is going on. Truth seekers from the four corners of the world are coming together to present a completely new and revolutionary understanding of our world and history. Even the world itself will spin in a new way.

It's a worthy topic so more rationale on The Cycle to follow.

OK Aum
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9895
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post27 Dec 2012

Extraordinary claim ... 5,000 years, 4 equal ages, 900,000 etc 'e-x-a-c-t-l-y'? Is that not all a bit too neat? Nature does not tend to be so precise, it tends to be far more random and organic in its form. Everything is all different shapes and sizes.

(For the record, I fully expect the BKs in the West to gradually dismiss and remove the 5,000 years figure as it looks to fail yet again? Already in their posters it has gone to be replaced with a vague graphic theory of time which, let's face it, is fairly common in numerous religions. )
    Can you explain by what mechanism, how and where, does the entire universe know to run for 5,000 years exactly in four equal segments? And then,

    How does every molecule and photon (light energy) know and manage to return to their identical spot
I think there's no "common sense" to the BK "Knowledge". There's just an incredibly simplistic symmetry which some minds find satisfying or pleasurable because it plugs all the great unknowable philosophical questions such as, "Who am I? Who is God? Why am I here?" etc.

And if you define "heaven" as Lekhraj Kirpalani being able to have a bath with 4 half naked teenage girls or young women, to lie around with them in slumber parties, and canoodle ... then I suppose it did exist. At least for one middle aged man.

I sure his old wife did not feel that way.

(* For the record, it is not "research" which has claimed the Taj Mahal is a Shiva temple. It was a former Bharatiya Janata Party (right wing Hindu nationalist) MP Vinay Katiyar who claimed it, in order to rake muck between Hindus and Muslims. Even the national Bharatiya Janata Party leadership has dissociated itself from "the bizarre claim". Katiyar is claiming the Taj belongs to Hindus and that a 'Shankar Sena' (Shiva army) will be formed to reclaim it, as per the "Ayodhya dispute" in which Hindu nationalist rioters destroyed the Babri Mosque. The Taj Mahal is pure Mughal architecture. It looks like no Shiva temple on earth.)
Offline
User avatar

howiemac

ex-BK

  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2006
  • Location: Scotland

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post28 Dec 2012

I find this discussion entertaining. Why should anyone with a clear intellect believe the specific details that Lehkraj/BapDada spouts, when the same "God speaks" guy has been claiming wrongly since the 1930's that the "destruction" is about to happen. And "God" claimed until the 1960's that the form of the soul was "jyotilingam-shaped", and subsequently revised that (in the light of someone else's trance experiences, I believe, not from his own knowledge or experience) to egg-shaped (which is my own direct experience also). If he can be so clearly wrong on such details, and yet so dogmatic in his teachings, then how can anyone (who is not brainwashed) believe that this is God speaking?

We needn't even question whether God is or is not involved (that is another discussion). But to believe that the "Gyan" is the words or teachings of God is tantamount to madness, or at least a "stone" intellect.

Fond as I am of BapDada, he has been leading his followers a merry dance for decades now, simply by speaking with authority (that authority being gained simply through his consistent claim that God is speaking through him) and precision on matter where he is clearly (as has been proven again and again) mistaken. If God could speak, he would not speak nonsense.

Time being cyclical is one thing. But 5000 years? 84 births? etc etc....

5000 years my &^%$
Offline

because.parmeshwar

exiting BK

  • Posts: 268
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2009

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post29 Dec 2012

From Today's Murli- Children ask's father- how long you gonna stay in this body or when will destruction happen? Baba says- It means you insult me. To ask guest how long you gonna stay - doesn't it means you are insulting? He will say am i burden on you? Till ShivBaba is here, you children are not happy? so one should not ask such questions.


Summary - Shut up :shock: :-? :sad:
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9895
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post29 Dec 2012

Presumably that was in the 'essence' bit the Brahma Kumari leadership adds to it at the top and bottom to shut the followers up?

They are getting worse under Dadi Janki "Don't Question" Kripalani's influence but the middle management like Jayanti Kirpalani won't questioning because their warm bed and meal ticket would disappear if they spoke the truth.


What degree did you study for, Button Slammer? It would seem your being sucked in by the whole New Agey, Conspiracy Theory, even fundamentalist Christian thing. Many of the ideas you are chucking out belong there and do not come from the BKs' school.

Do you understand how science and academia works?

Speaking personally, physics was one of my worst subjects ... which is probably part of how I got sucked in by the BKs ;-) ... but even I can see how the probably of a 5,000 year accurate script, or invisible clock, is a little hard to believe in.
Offline
User avatar

Roy

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post04 Jan 2013

Hi guys, I am new to this forum as I usually post on the bk-pbk forum, but I was drawn to this thread ... so I hope it's okay for me as a questioning BK, or probably more accurately, a student of the teachings of the AIVV, to be posting on here along with you.

For what it's worth, here is my take on the scientific view of the universe and its origins ...

Scientific theory is asking us to believe, that billions of years ago, a tiny speck of condensed energy decided to explode, giving birth to all sorts of particles that expanded outwards creating the universe we know today, with its planets, stars and galaxies. But the Big Bang theory is being challenged by many at this time, because of the faulty mathematics it is based on. Also, the redshift theory which supposedly supports the expanding universe theory, is also being challenged by scientists who are observing anomalies in redshift readings for stars in the same galaxies, which vary greatly; which totally undermines what the mainstream scientists are claiming. However, this new evidence is not getting any publicity, because it would challenge too many careers and vested interests.

So moving on ... we are then asked to accept, that just by chance the earth was created in all this randomness, which was just the right distance from the sun to sustain life; that has an orbiting moon that fits over the sun perfectly (due to its relative distance from each), creating a total eclipse from time to time. Now these alone a pretty cool occurrences, seeing as, according to scientific consensus, the very existence of the functioning universe goes against all probability, with so many things having to be just so, in order for it to not simply collapse in on itself.

Okay, so far so good, a perfect world for life, created in a totally random universe that in all probability shouldn't even exist. Then another miracle happens. Plant life somehow evolves, living off the sun's energy and creating an atmosphere with oxygen (although where the essential nitrogen gas comes from needed to form amino acids and DNA etc, and all the essential water that covers two thirds the Earth, I am not so sure), which is essential for life. Weather patterns are produced as result, which include lightning strikes on the earth, that somehow manage to create amino acids, in some primordial soup.

Then we are asked to believe, that somehow these amino acids were able to form a cell wall around themselves, create a nucleus and genetic material, which contains hugely complex biological programming for replicating life. It should be noted at this point that scientists have apparently managed to produce amino acids in the lab, but creating a living cell with a cell wall has so far evaded them, and actually, always will. Then through a series of totally random events these programmes created single cell creatures, that then started to develop into multi cellular creatures, all by complete chance, and going against the law of randomness and chaos, that supposedly rules the universe. Specialisation started to occur, that created a nervous system, lungs, incredibly complex eyes etc etc etc.

Billions of years later after immeasurable random mutations, man as we know him today, came into being, with his hugely sophisticated body, that makes the mind simply boggle, when you realise trillions of cells are all working in complete harmony; and all this happened by mere random chance in a universe that in all probability shouldn't exist in the first place. Now, if I said to you I'd read a story in the newspaper, where a hurricane had hit an old metal scrapyard, and the result of this was that a functioning Boeing 747 passenger jet plane was created in the process, you would just laugh in my face. But we are expected to believe in the fairy story of the Big Bang and evolution, because some clever people called scientists believe this may be the way it all came together.

The teachings of the BKs and PBKs asks us to believe in a 5000 year cycle, which is eternal, and for me this is much more acceptable than a story that I have just presented above, which is frankly non-sensical imo ... The claim that we have always been here, and always will be, does not go against the law of physics that states, that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

My belief is that the soul is the master of matter in its purest state ... and once the soul becomes pure again, the universe once again re-organises itself to be the complete servant of the soul, so that every atom will return to its initial position that is started from 5000 years ago. I believe new advances in how we see the universe and how it really works will come to the fore, because for all their cleverness, the scientists are only guessing for the most part, based on their own biased view of the world that excludes God and the soul.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9895
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post04 Jan 2013

Please bear in mind that the purpose of this website is to help people leave or get over the BKWSU, or to protect non-BKs from it not to be a surrogate for it.

The problem with people who are not scientifically trained is that they cannot recognise *how* unscientific their statements are. They don't know the current state of art, they don't understand how science works and really their efforts are to shut science up because it challenges our habitually lazy minds. I am not scientifically trained but I know that much.

The logic that both you and button slammer are using appears to goes something like this ...

All scientists are one ... they don't know everything ... in the past they refined their ideas in the light of new evidence. and so therefore they get things "wrong" ... therefore nothing they say can be trusted, and it's all wrong ... so just believe in BK Knowledge.

The big problem with that is that the jump from where evolutionary science is currently to accepting BK Creationism is infinitely greater than those calculations you present.

And the multi-million dollar, million membership BKWS "University" has never managed to publish one convincing scientific paper explain the mythology, anomalies or miracles ... e.g. light traveling backwards in time or molecules of alloys from outer space exploration separating and finding their way back to the same identical position underground ... in its entire history.

I don't believe it has even managed to explain its population growth figures, e.g. 900,000 to 330 million etc.
Roy wrote:Now, if I said to you I'd read a story in the newspaper, where a hurricane had hit an old metal scrapyard, and the result of this was that a functioning Boeing 747 passenger jet plane was created in the process, you would just laugh in my face.

Actually, it was astronomer Fred Hoyle, a once BK associate who, in his 1983 book 'The Intelligent Universe' wrote in favour of his own theory of Panspermia (the idea life on earth came from space in the form of bacteria traveling from planetary collisions) ...
Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.

However, he and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe also went on to say ...
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe wrote:The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion.

In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men.

To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion.
We are inescapably the result of a long heritage of learning, adaptation, mutation and evolution, the product of a history which predates our birth as a biological species and stretches back over many thousand millennia ...

Going further back, we share a common ancestry with our fellow primates; and going still further back, we share a common ancestry with all other living creatures and plants down to the simplest microbe. The further back we go, the greater the difference from external appearances and behavior patterns which we observe today ...

Darwin's theory, which is now accepted without dissent, is the cornerstone of modern biology. Our own links with the simplest forms of microbial life are well-nigh proven.

The junkyard analogy fails on numerous accounts which we can discuss if it will help you move on from the BK way of thinking. Because it has a fixed and perfect target at the end of its probability, I suppose it is attractive to the BK state of mind because it too has a fixed and perfect target at the end of its theory. In short, without wishing to cause offence, it's an argument that could be made only by people who doesn't understand science and natural selection. Hoyle did not mean to apply it to later evolution, he was merely talking about the beginning of life.

From our perspective looking backwards it might appear as if there were the 10 to the power of 40,000 permutations (10 + 40,000 zeros as reported in the science journal 'Nature', 1981) but from the evolutionary perspective looking forwards from the beginning, there was only one possibility at each step ... the one that survived natural selection. No one knew where it was going and many strands failed.

I think it is this uncertainty that makes individuals uncomfortable and drives them towards the religious story tellers who give them easy answers for all the difficult questions ... who am I ... why am I here ... what is life all about etc?

Why need to know? Why fall prey to the story tellers? Why swallow the seed of ego to want to be seen as knowledgeful and become a guru? Why not just accept the random uncertainty of life as it is?

Actually, despite all the Brahma Kumari bleating and baying about the "arrogant scientists" of the West, scientists actually say that they do not know the origins of life of the universe yet. They only know what they can prove, they know what they don't know, and are able to weigh up the probability of each new idea arising on the basis of previous findings and real laws.

It's a great shame that the Brahma Kumaris, having stolen people's minds and helped themselves to their wallets, don't invest a little of that back teaching people how to think and learn, rather than how not to think.

With regards to Creationism, the BKs have not a clue. It's all done by the wave of a magic wand for them ... and all their predictions to date have failed. The best their followers can do is snatch little intellectual devices (yuktis) or arguments from Biblical Creationists, and try and use those to prop up their unknowing faith.
Wickramasinghe wrote:The notion of a creator placed outside the Universe poses logical difficulties, and is not one to which I can easily subscribe ... My colleague, Sir Fred Hoyle, has also expressed a similar preference.
Offline
User avatar

howiemac

ex-BK

  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2006
  • Location: Scotland

One Free Miracle

Post04 Jan 2013

Terence McKenna famously said:
Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.


Big Bang... or "Let there be light"... both imply a beginning that defies rational explanation. Why should there be a beginning or an end? Why should anything be rational in its essence? In the Soul World, time and space do not exist, as our rational minds understand them. Cosmic questions require cosmic consciousness to address them, and such is not expressible in words or logic. "Eternal" is enough of an answer for me: no beginning, no end. BB's model works in that respect.

But, 5000 years? Give us a break. BB-style arguments that "that is wrong therefore this must be right" are not fit even for the primary school playground. We are all free to believe what we like, but why try to impose our delusions on others? (Okay I accept I am as guilty as that of the next guy - I will try to reform myself forthwith!)
Offline
User avatar

howiemac

ex-BK

  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2006
  • Location: Scotland

teaching people how to think and learn

Post04 Jan 2013

ex-l wrote:It's a great shame that the Brahma Kumaris, having stolen people's minds and helped themselves to their wallets, don't invest a little of that back teaching people how to think and learn, rather than how not to think.

But how can you run a cult on that basis? Ludicrous!
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9895
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: One Free Miracle

Post05 Jan 2013

howiemac wrote:Big Bang... or "Let there be light"... both imply a beginning that defies rational explanation. Why should there be a beginning or an end? "Eternal" is enough of an answer for me: no beginning, no end.

I think that is Hoyle and Wickramasinghe position, and their hypothesis is that life traveled between planets or solar systems thereby getting around the Creationists' argument about "how did the first single living cells on earth start?", but it's not Lekhraj Kirpalani's position. His universe was a rather finite egg shaped one floating in another nothingness.

It's also worth remembering that both the Biblical Creationists, and the BKs, believe that there is only life on planet Earth. In my opinion, Lekhraj Kirpalani borrowed "End of the World-ism" from Christians in India (although I have no direct evidence to support that at present), and today BKs are borrowing badly fitting arguments from Christian Creationist today.

Why cannot their god, gurus or experts do any better?

I am not a scientist. I know that. But I know enough and am able to understand enough to know that I do not know and understand!

The problem with many religionists is that they do not know how absolutely clueless they are about all this stuff ... and that they refuse to become educated in the area. They have no idea about how much they do not know about how science works.

At present, absolutely stupidity is having some kind of revival, especially in the USA where there are corporate sized and financed powers behind Biblical Creationism. Strangely, Western BKs seem to be aligning themselves with it as a world that is ~6,000 to ~10,000 years old is not that much different from a world that is 5,000 years old. And I think they are preparing themselves for the 5,000 year figure to change.

That should be the ultimate failure of the BKWSU ... but it won't be. It will continue to morph as long as it is still fed.


The whole raison d'etre of religionists seems to be to get other people to bow to them and their way of thinking and become their servants. The BKs literally teach this in their Murlis, "go forth and create your servants and worshippers ... claim your kingdom" almost in the same way that the God of Moses did (... but without the all murder, rape and fornication). The BKs have a more subtle way of enslaving other tribes but are in the same business.

It does not really matter what the thought form is (as in whether it is 5,000 years or not; or Destruction is in 1976, or not; or the population is 4.5 billion, or not ... to quote the BK god).

What matters is that YOU bow to ME and OBEY.

Once I have you OBEYING, I can always change the thought form by some magical process YOU could not possibly understand.

For some easy going insights on these matters, try: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
Offline
User avatar

button slammer

PBK

  • Posts: 205
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post08 Jan 2013

ex-l wrote:As for Robert V Gentry, he has had scientific papers publish, so that sink that conspiracy theory. He was one of a number of born-again Christians who tried to force the American education system to teach Biblical Creationism on an equal footing with science at public schools in the USA ... and lost because it was religion not science.

The list below describes intelligent academic, qualified scientists and journalists who've experienced suppression of publications, rejection of employment, and tenure due to their views on either creationism or alternate ideas to evolution theory.
Conservapedia wrote:Cases of suppression. Recognition affected

Individuals have been denied awards or qualifications, or attempts have been made to have them withdrawn.

David Bolhuis

David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, Michigan was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year. However, the American Civil Liberties Union protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation and evolution. Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award.

Employment affected

In many cases, individuals have been fired, threatened with being fired, demoted, moved, or not employed. This is not even confined to creationists and intelligent design advocates, but even affects evolutionists who don't toe the line in refusing to even consider alternatives.

Lloyd Dale

Lloyd Dale was an award-winning and highly-qualified high school teacher in South Dakota who was fired in 1980 for teaching about both evolution and creation.

Forrest Mims

Forrest Mims III is a science writer who, by 1990, had seen more than 500 of his articles published in 62 newspapers and magazines.

Science magazine Scientific American invited him to submit some articles for their Amateur Scientist column, and the expectation was that these would lead on to a permanent job. The articles were published in 1990, and the editor described Mims' work as "first rate", but when he discovered that Mims was a creationist, Mims was denied further work with the magazine.

Richard Sternberg

For a more detailed treatment, see Smithsonian-Sternberg affair.

Guillermo Gonzalez

Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure and promotion to associate professor by Iowa State University, despite apparently easily meeting their criteria. The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals". Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.
But Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.

Robert Gentry

Robert Gentry became the acknowledged expert on radiohalos, and published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including Science, Nature, and Journal of Geophysical Research. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.

Roger Paull

Roger Paull was a substitute teacher in Arizona. One assignment saw him showing to his class a video left by the regular teacher. The video disparaged Christianity and glorified naturalism. After the third video, on evolution, he briefly mentioned intelligent design to the class. The next day he was suspended and has not been able to teach since, having been effectively "blackballed". He says that he was viewed "almost the same way a potential pedophile would be".

Michael Reiss

Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, called for schools to teach students about creationism, and this resulted in him being forced to resign from his part time job as Director of Education at the Royal Society.

Accreditation affected

The ICR Graduate School

For a more detailed treatment, see ICR Graduate School.

The ICR Graduate School had for years been offering graduate degrees in California. Then in 1986 California abruptly changed its rules, and its new Superintendent of Public Instruction, William Honig, determined to stop ICR at any cost. ICR had to sue the State in federal court to get his decisions reversed.

In 2006 ICR decided to move to Texas but then encountered the same difficulties. In April 2008 the Academic Excellence and Research Committee of the Texas Higher-Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously to deny the ICR Graduate School's application for accreditation. The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education said only, "Religious beliefs are not science." ICR might appeal the process administratively, submit a new proposal, or sue the State of Texas for injunctive relief.

Court challenges to education

In 1925 the American Civil Liberties Union challenged a Tennessee law that forbade teaching that man had evolved (it did not otherwise forbid teaching evolution), in what became known as the Scopes Trial. The ACLU lawyer, Clarence Darrow, argued that it was wrong to only teach one view of origins. Yet now the ACLU and other supporters of evolution argue that only the evolutionary view of origins should be taught.

Dover County School Board

In 2004, the Dover County School Board in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., approved a curriculum which included that teachers should read to their class a statement pointing out that evolution is an explanation of observations, not a fact, that intelligent design is an alternative explanation, that the book Of Pandas and People is available if students want to know more about Intelligent design, and that the students are to keep an open mind. But even this was too much for the committed evolutionists, and a court challenge, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, saw the requirement removed, on the grounds that the proponents of the requirement had religious motives.

Philip Bishop

Associate professor of physiology, Dr. Philip Bishop, was taken to court by his employer, the University of Alabama, to stop him briefly expressing his views favoring intelligent design, on the grounds that they were religious. Yet views opposing religion are routinely expressed in classes with no attempts made to stop them.

Cobb County School District

Even pointing out that students should apply some critical thinking to evolution is unacceptable to the evolutionists.
In 2002 the Cobb County School District in Georgia, U.S.A., placed stickers in the front of biology textbooks which simply read: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
Yet even this innocuous statement was challenged in court, with the ultimate result being that the stickers were removed from the textbooks.

Peer review publications

A frequent criticism of creationism and intelligent design is that they fail to pass peer review, and cannot therefore be considered scientific. Creationists and intelligent design proponents counter that they fail to pass peer review on the grounds of ideology, not scientific merit. One columnist wrote, note the circularity. Critics of intelligent design have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific.

Chemistry in Australia

The April 2007 issue of Chemistry in Australia included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.

The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

In August 2004, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published a paper by Stephen Meyer which gave an overview of intelligent design arguments. The ensuing outcry, including from people who had not even read the paper, resulted in the Biological Society of Washington undertaking to never again publish anything about intelligent design. There were claims that the paper had bypassed the peer review process, but these were shown to be false. The refusal to ever publish on the topic again was not on the grounds of not passing peer review, but in line with the American Association for the Advancement of Science's position that intelligent design is not science.

Science letters to the editor

After failing to get a letter published in the journal Science, Russell Humphreys wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters. She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism". This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".

Public information

The Science Show, ABC Australia

In a March 2003 broadcast of The Science Show on Radio National, a radio station of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, presenter Robyn Williams and Eugenie Scott, executive director of the American National Center for Science Education, openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.

Robyn Williams: And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument.

Eugenie Scott: Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.

Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre

When creationists proposed that a new visitor's centre at the Giant's Causeway geological formation in Northern Ireland should include the creationist explanation of its formation alongside the secular view, anti-creationists objected, wanting only their view to be made available to visitors.

Attempts to prevent creationists being heard

On numerous occasions, anti-creationists have attempted to prevent creationists being able to promote their point of view by attempting to have their venue bookings cancelled or by heckling the speakers during their talks.

Werner Gitt

In October 2008, protesters attempted to prevent German creationary scientist Dr. Werner Gitt from giving a talk titled Why I as a scientist believe the Bible at Leibniz University. The protests followed unsuccessful attempts to pressure the university administration to cancel the talk. As the talk was about to start, the protesters unfurled banners, one with the German for "Creationists, go to hell!" and another with a foul expression, then started chanting and blowing whistles to prevent the talk from going ahead. Police were called by the organizers, but the two, then five, officers were ignored by the protesters, who were only removed after another 20 police officers arrived, allowing the talk to go ahead an hour late.
ex-l wrote: Whereas scientists are smart, intellectual and extremely rational; most religionists would be happier back in the Middle Ages or living in an imaginary Harry Potter Land.

Is clear how you are using vilification and ridicule to debunk spiritual viewpoints of others. If as you say science is so smart, my original question remains unanswered. What is motion?

Scientist are so smart they invented atom bombs, and are sawing off the branch they are sitting on. Science has brought peace, beauty, love and compassion into the world? Not quite. Science has wreaked havoc and destruction on the world. Science for profit only.

Scientists can be great ego maniacs driven by thirst for recognition and honours, and don't care who they steal ideas from, or whether alternative ideas may be more accurate and reasonable to their own. So far science hasn't presented any unifying, practical understanding as to the cause of things. OK, science has measured a lot of effects and created a great deal of technology based upon measurements through the sense organs only and extensions of the organs through various physical apparatus; but science hasn't revealed what is light, electricity, magnetism, or matter, the very elements upon which our technology is based.

No matter how many volumes of equations have been published or theories proposed; till date, no scientist has The Knowledge of creation, or its cause.
ex-l wrote:Actually, it was astronomer Fred Hoyle, a once BK associate who, in his 1983 book 'The Intelligent Universe' wrote in favour of his own theory of Panspermia (the idea life on earth came from space in the form of bacteria traveling from planetary collisions) ...

Well, here we just go off into infinite regression, where did the floating spores originate from? Did Hoyle ever observe spores originating in space? No. Is entirely unscientific. Science by definition has to be observable, and identically repeatable in laboratory conditions.
ex-l wrote:All scientists are one ... they don't know everything ... in the past they refined their ideas in the light of new evidence. and so therefore they get things "wrong" ... therefore nothing they say can be trusted, and it's all wrong ... so just believe in BK Knowledge.

This is just clumsy manoeuvring on your part. Roy and myself are fairly broad-minded and reasonable. Neither are we saying 'down with science' or dogmatically presenting Gyan. I believe science should review and revise its theories if new theories are present with clearer and more precise ideas, plus a practical application of those theories. So far nothing practical has come from Einstein's field equations. Development of the atomic bomb wasn't even related to relativity, yet it has been lauded as the greatest discovery ever, his theories were plagiarised anyway and were possibly co-authored by his wife who got no recognition. Einstein was Jewish. Zionists controlled much of the media, as they do today and simply launched Einstein into the limelight. His noble prize was shambolic and unworthy compared to other contenders at the time. It's just an example of how politics gets involved into science and popularises one particular theory over another until it becomes 'reality'. Brainwashing on a big scale.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9895
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post08 Jan 2013

Please check your sources, that 'copy and paste' comes from Conservapedia which has been has been described as "a deceitful, heavily biased and willfully ignorant wiki-based encyclopedia blog project written from an [American] far right and supposedly Christian point of view".

Why would BKs/PBKs look to the American fundamentalist Christian Right for answers? By your own philosophy, they're probably only first or second birth souls. It's just "baffling by bullsh**".

All the BKs and PBKs have to do is offer a scientific explanation for how every molecule, and especially every photon (a quantum of light) in the Universe, finds their way back to an *identical* point they were in exactly 5,000 years ago, and how nature ensures, e.g. the existence of exactly 900,000 human beings.

Have you *any* idea how big a problem that is!?! It's not just like "one problem versus another problem" A = B. It's like taking all the scientific problems that ever existed and multiplying them infinity.

Probability of it being able to be true is impossible.

Do the mathematics before you gamble your life on it ... and taking the impossible probability of it, multiple that by all the obvious falsehoods and failures.
button slammer wrote:Well, here we just go off into infinite regression, where did the floating spores originate from? Did Hoyle ever observe spores originating in space? No. Is entirely unscientific. Science by definition has to be observable, and identically repeatable in laboratory conditions.

No, to science having to be "observable and repeatable in laboratory conditions".

That's just to obvious to have to respond to.

Yes, to Hoyle's concept being unscientific. He was much derided and considered a maverick who had "stepped beyond the bounds of scientific eccentricity" ... a polite way of saying he was a nut, not that the BKs noticed or cared. He was famous and an -ologist and so that was good enough for them. He and his partner wrote science fiction, which might give us a clue.

However, in an infinite and eternal universe there is no beginning and any possibility could be true ... as in the BK/PBK and numerous other Eastern religions, life would always exist.

Neither does the BK/PBK theory offer us any explanation how and where it all came from in the first place, nor how it keep regenerating itself every click-clock 5,000 years exactly (leap years included).
This is just clumsy manoeuvring on your part. Roy and myself are fairly broad-minded and reasonable ...

You may be but I think you have no idea of the shape and structure of your own mind ... or perhaps, otherwise put, the lens through which you look is like.

I do not mean to offend you but you seem to think the lens of your mind is clear and regular and everything is in perspective but, in fact, it is widely distorted; magnifying here, 'microfying' there, utterly blind in some places, fracturing like a prism in others. There's too much wild, psychedelic, conspiratorial theory and not enough direct contact.

Part of the disciplines of science is to reduce or remove those liabilities. I mean, how much real science or real scientists do you know? Have you ever been to a scientific conference?

One of my frustrations with the BK/PBK thing is that despite all the talk about mastering or purifying the mind, they have not a clue and do not teach even the basic building blocks of logic.

Both religions depend on a constant tide of fallacious arguments and avoidances in order to exist.

Try removing them first, please. From: List of common fallacies
You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.

-Robert A. Wilson
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9895
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post08 Jan 2013

For the record, I am not suggesting my mind is any better than yours. The main difference between us is that I don't feel the need to believe in the unbelievable in order to be part of a 'team'.

I think it's also fair to point out that Dr Iveson's letter places more importance on history 2,500 years or more, of which we have very good evidence contradicting BK/PBK teachings. History of which the BKWSU is silent.

One has to remember the state of their mind and knowledge of history when the movement was first formed.

('America Inc', and its Christian fundamentalist right wing, is many times more a deranged and dangerous cult to me than the BKs.)
Offline
User avatar

Roy

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post10 Jan 2013

ex-l wrote:Please bear in mind that the purpose of this website is to help people leave or get over the BKWSU, or to protect non-BKs from it not to be a surrogate for it.

Absolutely ex-l, I have no wish to get in the way of the work that goes on here, in helping souls get past their negative BKWSU experiences ... and I accept that I will be edited or even removed if I cause offence or upset to anyone.

Just before I move on ... can you tell me why I did not get an email update of the posts that have emerged on this topic? ... Is there a setting I need to adjust to rectify this? Thanks!
ex-l wrote:The problem with people who are not scientifically trained is that they cannot recognise *how* unscientific their statements are. They don't know the current state of art, they don't understand how science works and really their efforts are to shut science up because it challenges our habitually lazy minds. I am not scientifically trained but I know that much.

I wouldn't call myself scientifically trained or particularly bright to be honest ... but I did maths, physics and chemistry at 'A' level standard ... and even considered becoming an industrial chemist, before I learned of their short life spans. :D But my argument started with fellow scientists poo-pooing current mainstream scientific theories ... and that these arguments are not being given recognition or investigated further. I made the point that new things will emerge from scientists themselves (although not mainstream ones) that will change the way we all see the universe. I am not anti science, I am anti- dishonest science theory and scientists who block out challenges from new evidence that emerges, to protect vested interests and careers ... just as you are anti- the dishonesty that goes on in the BKWSU. There is no difference between the two. PBKs are like the non-mainstream scientists, holding the BKWSU (mainstream scientists) to account ... and, in both cases, the mainstream bodies are ignoring and blocking these upstarts, to the best of their ability.

Scientists and others, simply cannot accept the mind blowing but very simple concept that we have always been here and always will be. To avoid this simple but deep concept, they have to create complex theories of Big Bangs with a expanding and contracting universe, with unbelievable stories of how life began on earth, and somehow developed into hugely complex organisms, over a vast period of time. However, for me, eternity is the only logical answer, mind blowing as it is. I had these thoughts before knowledge; so when these things came up in the RajYoga course, it was like manna from heaven.

Yes, there are some very good questions, like how light will get back to its original point at the beginning of The Cycle etc ... but I sincerely believe that mainstream scientists have gotten so much wrong, and that the answer to this is just around the corner, if we are willing to accept it when it reveals itself. Because just as you accuse the BKs of having blind faith in whatever their so called God says ... I throw the same claim back, that others have blind faith in what scientists say, simply because they have 100 letters after there names that prove how clever they are.

You talk about evidence ex-l, as though it proved unequivocally, the mainstream scientists' view of the world. The evidence though is not conclusive in most cases, and open to speculation and manipulation. The dating process, for example, makes huge assumptions about the state of things when rocks were formed etc ... I do not take take the interpretations of evidence by the scientific community or historians as the truth anymore because I realise now that they are just as closed minded as the BKs, who won't look at the truth emerging about the origins of the BKWSU. But IMO, pretty soon in both cases, the evidence will be so strong, that it can no longer be ignored.

I watch with interest.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9895
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post11 Jan 2013

Roy wrote:Scientists and others, simply cannot accept the mind blowing but very simple concept that we have always been here and always will be. To avoid this simple but deep concept, they have to create complex theories of Big Bangs with a expanding and contracting universe, with unbelievable stories of how life began on earth, and somehow developed into hugely complex organisms, over a vast period of time.

I don't think it is fair or accurate to suggest that science is developing to "avoid" the idea life has always existed? I don't think that has been a motivating principle.

Indeed, I've often seen the "Big Bang Theory", which Hoyle was a critic of yet responsible for coining the term, as just an extension or refinement of the Biblical creation theory. Had science been dominated by Hindu or Buddhist scientists rather than Christian ones, perhaps they would have theorised a different model.

I have no idea what the current state of creation science is as it has no relevance or application to my life but it's my understanding that there is no real understanding yet of how life began ... just how life has developed since. I think you and Buttonslammer misrepresent scientists errors and mistakes rather too enthusiastically and I think the usual arguments which critics present are very out of date too.

You also don't address the contradictions in Godly BK Brahmins using Christian fundamentalist ideas.

To me, it seems that the "big ideas" of science are what scientists do for a bit of fun and light relief (New Scientist rather than the likes of Nexus magazine), but that real science progresses by very tiny, exacting and cautious steps which anyone outside of their speciality finds increasingly hard to follow.

I know the PBKs have a slightly more complex version of "Creation" from the BKs version including deep friezes and heavy rains ... but does it address all the controversies completely?

A comedian and a scientist discuss religion ... "I know people who stopped believing in God because pets were not allowed" ... Richard Dawkins & Ricky Gervais. A more serious discussion with Dawkins on the origin of life is here.

PreviousNext

Return to Classic Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests