Re: (OT) Some cults have internet discussion groups
Re: No, Rawat don't do dat. -- Joe	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: Andries ® 08/17/2005, 15:12:18 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

Joe, you wrote "All cults are like that, really. They are mostly based on fear. The Rawat cult is no different." You are overgeneralizing. I was a member of a Sathya Sai Baba discussion group on the internet. When you come to an SSB group you can read and get a lot of information and books by and about SSB, in contrast to the Elan Vital meetings. Of course, the SSB group members will not mention the sexual abuse "allegations" or the sleight of hand "allegations" (because they do not believe them to be true). The lack of information that Elan Vital provides would drive me crazy, but that is very personal, of course. Andries

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

Re: (OT) Some cults have internet discussion groups --- Karen K ( Wed, Aug 17, 2005, 16:25:27 ) ( 117 bytes ) But that's not what I said... --- Joe ( Wed, Aug 17, 2005, 20:09:49 ) ( 296 bytes ) +1 Re: Cults are mostly based on fun --- paddy ( Wed, Aug 17, 2005, 23:44:40 ) ( 1400 bytes ) +1 Now THAT's bullshit, Paddy --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 10:35:06 ) ( 402 bytes ) +1 Re: War with the Mind Was Personal --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 15:51:53 ) ( 1567 bytes ) +2 .....not if you were a "true" devotee, Paddy. --- Lexy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 16:32:18 ) ( 707 bytes ) +1 Re: .....how true is true? --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 17:01:13 ) ( 711 bytes ) +2 Did you listen to Rawat or not? --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 17:06:03 ) ( 244 bytes ) +1 Re: Did you listen to Rawat or not? --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 19:51:50 ) ( 634 bytes ) +1 That's fine -- but, face it, you were hardly a premie --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 20:15:46 ) ( 557 bytes ) +1 Re: That's fine -- but, face it, were you a premie? --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 21:43:13 ) ( 2353 bytes ) +1 Suspect we approached it similarly but --- hamzen ( Mon, Aug 22, 2005, 18:08:44 ) ( 110 bytes ) Your "experience" of seventies premiedom doesn't seem fun,Paddy ! --- Lexy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 03:27:36 ) ( 517 bytes ) Come on, Paddy -- this is too obvious --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 16:51:19 ) ( 1057 bytes ) +1 Re: Come on, Paddy -- this is too obvious --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 17:09:21 ) ( 928 bytes ) +1 You're missing the main point --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 17:16:07 ) ( 886 bytes ) +1 Re: No side-stepping whatsoever --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 19:46:31 ) ( 1526 bytes ) +2 Surrender -"depends on what the defination of "is" is. NOT! (no text) --- Karen K ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 19:58:16 ) ( 0 bytes ) So what did you think stuff like this was about? --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 20:10:24 ) ( 9806 bytes ) +2 Right On!!!! Great post (no text) --- Karen K ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 20:44:47 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: So what did you think stuff like this was about? --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 20:48:50 ) ( 1326 bytes ) +1 I disagree --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 21:30:26 ) ( 4409 bytes ) +1 Re: I disaguilt --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 21:48:51 ) ( 499 bytes ) +1 I hear you --- Jim ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 22:02:11 ) ( 908 bytes ) +1 Re: I hear you and I sing to you --- paddy ( Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 23:25:30 ) ( 1938 bytes ) +2 truth - pathless land or maze ? --- Flywithoutwings ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 03:59:35 ) ( 408 bytes ) +2 Re: ISB OT --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 16:51:49 ) ( 380 bytes ) OK, FWW, it's time for a vote! --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 19:07:13 ) ( 79 bytes ) +1 Re: Don't be ridiculous Jim --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 19:58:21 ) ( 688 bytes ) +1 LOLLLLLL!!! (no text) --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 20:08:08 ) ( 0 bytes ) I don't agree that guilt was optional --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 10:22:55 ) ( 897 bytes ) +2 Guilt was optional --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 11:16:34 ) ( 963 bytes ) +1 But WAS guilt really optional? --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 13:19:31 ) ( 921 bytes ) +1 Re: But WAS guilt really optional? --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 14:57:14 ) ( 3919 bytes ) +2 ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- PatD ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 18:36:29 ) ( 718 bytes ) +1 Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 21:53:51 ) ( 878 bytes ) +1 Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- PatD ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 07:00:18 ) ( 649 bytes ) +1 Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 08:53:34 ) ( 1377 bytes ) +2 The point is, it wasn't a popular view with RAWAT --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:25:16 ) ( 236 bytes ) +1 Re: The point is, it wasn't a popular view with RAWAT --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 16:45:14 ) ( 422 bytes ) Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- PatD ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 18:01:38 ) ( 1599 bytes ) +1 Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 19:05:40 ) ( 421 bytes ) +1 Thanks for the clarification Steve --- PatD ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 20:52:17 ) ( 519 bytes ) But Steve, didn't we have a guru or something? --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 18:38:50 ) ( 1988 bytes ) +1 Re: But Steve, didn't we have a guru or something? --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 19:48:50 ) ( 3943 bytes ) +2 In a cult, only the leader can decide who's a good follower --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 20:00:31 ) ( 1080 bytes ) +1 Re: In a cult, only the leader can decide who's a good follower --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 21:46:19 ) ( 4239 bytes ) +1 This is a BIZARRE argument (but you're still wrong) --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 22:23:02 ) ( 4702 bytes ) +2 Re: This is a BIZARRE argument (but seriously) --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 22:59:06 ) ( 217 bytes ) +1 Re: This is a BIZARRE argument (but seriously) --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 11:52:04 ) ( 266 bytes ) Re: This is a BIZARRE argument (but you're still wrong) --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 23:41:19 ) ( 3251 bytes ) link +1 Sorry, but that's NOT what "devotion" meant --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 11:37:46 ) ( 1854 bytes ) link +1 Let's agree to disagree --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 17:35:21 ) ( 2987 bytes ) +1 Steve, if you can look at this fairly and dispassionately .... --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 21:37:33 ) ( 1251 bytes ) +1 P.S. --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 21:49:03 ) ( 988 bytes ) +1 Re: P.S. --- Steve ( Sun, Aug 21, 2005, 17:57:57 ) ( 931 bytes ) Teachers always have different categories of followers --- Tempora ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:14:38 ) ( 4104 bytes ) +2 Sounds like you weren't a good premie either --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:33:33 ) ( 1519 bytes ) +1 Can Roupell come to the party? --- Tempora ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 13:31:36 ) ( 338 bytes ) +4 Re: Roupell was scum --- paddy ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 17:35:54 ) ( 510 bytes ) +1 Oops --- Tempora ( Sun, Aug 21, 2005, 08:21:49 ) ( 699 bytes ) A decent guy --- Marianne ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 18:33:40 ) ( 249 bytes ) Are you drunk? --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 21:52:56 ) ( 338 bytes ) Re: Can Roupell come to the party?:..sure --- Jethro ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 22:09:12 ) ( 185 bytes ) De (no text) --- Tempora ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:43:54 ) ( 0 bytes ) Re: I don't agree that guilt was optional --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 17:03:19 ) ( 1755 bytes ) +1 You're distorting what I said --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 18:44:51 ) ( 1294 bytes ) +1 Re: You're distorting what I said --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 20:17:07 ) ( 1650 bytes )