Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

mrj123
 
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 12:16 pm
MAX,

Your bringing Jesus into this is not valid. Jesus was never documented nor had children who testified they were sexually abused.

Three of Berg's own children testified to being sexually abused, my heart ached when I saw these poor children testify of their abuse. I don't hate you max, but I hate the ideology and pride you have in defending the practices of your organization which defy Christ.

Jesus said, "know the truth and the truth shall set you free." I have been set free by observing the wicked deeds of your organization into the light. You say you dont deal with hypothetical situations, regarding the fact that Berg should have been excommunicated for having sex with minors, because you want those sins to be concealed and not brought up, "He who conceals his sins shall not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercyâ€
 
JASONLANIK
 
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 02:04 pm
To James Massa
James Massa wrote:
MAX,

Your bringing Jesus into this is not valid. Jesus was never documented nor had children who testified they were sexually abused.

Three of Berg's own children testified to being sexually abused, my heart ached when I saw these poor children testify of their abuse. I don't hate you max, but I hate the ideology and pride you have in defending the practices of your organization which defy Christ.

Jesus said, "know the truth and the truth shall set you free." I have been set free by observing the wicked deeds of your organization into the light. You say you dont deal with hypothetical situations, regarding the fact that Berg should have been excommunicated for having sex with minors, because you want those sins to be concealed and not brought up, "He who conceals his sins shall not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercyâ€
 
tyciol 2
 
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 08:09 am
Cookie wrote:
you have me all wrong here. i have not gone from liking it to being disgusted. i am disgusted because i was taken advantage of. How could i have known that at the time, when these things were the only way we knew things to be? i never voluntarilly did anything with adults, nor did i like being forced to do things with them. what i was saying is that because i was rarely around people my own age, adults were the only people who could compliment me. when i talked about flirtation, i mean an innocent 5~12 or so year old's glee at being told my dress was really pretty -- not the "come sit on my lap" (to get them off) kind of flirtation. and you've got a perverted mind if you think i "knew what i wanted" like you said i did.

What exactly is being 'taken advantage of'? Like, does it infer that someone benefits when someone else does not, or when they not only do not benefit but are inconvenianced/hurt in the process? Or that they benefit regardless of the status of the person being taken advantage of, even if it was a mutual benefit? I am trying basically to figure out what your status was in response to this as inferred by your phrasing, since you haven't mentioned it. Like, besides being pissed at taken advantage of, what other suffering has it caused?

You mentioned being forced to do things and disliking doing them (I guess during and after). This is a good example of why you should dislike it. This is a much better reason than disliking being taken advantage of, because you are disliking a direct harm that resulted from these actions which hurt you. It seems better to just focus on this grievance rather than to make it seem less bad by using the former phrasing.

You used "knew what I wanted" in quotes, inferring I said this exact thing about you, when you are in fact paraphrasing what you believe I meant. I have to tell you that you misinterpreted this. I said "some idea of" which is true. Children do have some idea of what they want. You had some idea of what you wanted.

Did you want it then, or didn't you? You said you did not do it voluntarily (meaning you did not initiate it) and that you were forced to do some things. This clearly indicates you did not want it then, right? At least, you didn't want it enough to choose to do it, nor for a want to make something okay afterwards since you still didn't want it after the fact.

This is why it was confusing to me to mention that children don't know what they want, as if you were saying you were some kind of rag doll getting tossed around and programmed. You werent, you were a person getting physically and mentally dominated. I think it's important to be honest about this, because demeaning your past free will saying 'I didn't know what I wanted' demeans the crimes that took place when people imposed upon it.

I hope this clarifies what I meant by my previous comment, I am sorry you misinterpreted it. I should try to be clearer, unfortunately to make myself clear requires lengthly explanations since people presume the worst from abbreviated expressions.
 
Cookie 2
 
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 03:38 pm
Tyciol, to clairfy:

I NEVER WANTED TO AND SERIOUSLY DISLIKED BEING RAPED, HAVING THINGS TORN AS A 7 YEAR OLD THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW EXISTED, GAGING ON THINGS THAT I SHOULD NEVER HAVE KNOWN EXISTED AT THAT AGE, AND LOSING MY INNOCENCE AND RESPECT FOR ADULTS OR MALES IN GENERAL!!!!

do you understand now?

this was abuse!

and i do not even know their real names, so i cannot ever have justice.
 
winter 1
 
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2007 10:15 am
tyciol wrote:

I hope this clarifies what I meant by my previous comment, I am sorry you misinterpreted it. I should try to be clearer, unfortunately to make myself clear requires lengthly explanations since people presume the worst from abbreviated expressions.


I didn't even read the recent posts on this thread, but you, tyciol, are anything but abbreviated. Perhaps you are retarded though... hahaha... muhahahaha... Sorry, I just feeling like saying that to you because you pissed Cookie off, and she seems like a kind person.

OK I have to go to sleep now.

Peace out peeps
 
Cookie 2
 
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 03:18 pm
i wouldn't be so kind if i met someone in real life with an attitude like tyciol's about child abuse who was anywhere near my family.
 
tyciol 2
 
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2008 02:02 am
Re:
Cookie wrote:
Tyciol, to clairfy: I NEVER WANTED TO AND SERIOUSLY DISLIKED BEING RAPED, HAVING THINGS TORN AS A 7 YEAR OLD THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW EXISTED, GAGING ON THINGS THAT I SHOULD NEVER HAVE KNOWN EXISTED AT THAT AGE, AND LOSING MY INNOCENCE AND RESPECT FOR ADULTS OR MALES IN GENERAL!!!! do you understand now? this was abuse! and i do not even know their real names, so i cannot ever have justice.
There was no need to clarify, I already got that impression and identified it in my previous post. I don't see losing respect for adults in general or men in general as a bad thing. Respect should never be something you are pressured to have for someone simply for being something they did nothing to accomplish (such as ageing or being born a man), but something you have for individuals of your own free will based upon appreciating their qualities. It is a painful realization to lose an overall optimism for people in general, good feelings toward strangers you do not know, but it is more realistic to assess based upon personal experiences. Now, seriously disliking being raped and being injured and gagging is natural and I would hate that too.

Knowing things exist, on the other hand, doesn't seem instrinsically harmful. A lot of people regret losing their innocence because they learn about less than inspirational aspects of reality, the loss of that bliss is lamentable as knowledge of such things can be depressing at times. Being unable to get it back (short of mind wiping themselves) people attempt to recreate the bliss of such innocense by observing it in others. This is fine so long as you don't force people to live in it against their will, or against their best interests, which can be applicable in certain circumstances. For example, in warning children about sexual predators, they may become less 'innocent' to you, but this can help protect them against feelings of being objectified and used as an inferior rather than being treated politely. The trauma of knowledge of bad things is less than the trauma of being subjected to them, so this is an example where a controlled loss of innocence benefits someone.

winter wrote:
tyciol wrote:
I hope this clarifies what I meant by my previous comment, I am sorry you misinterpreted it. I should try to be clearer, unfortunately to make myself clear requires lengthly explanations since people presume the worst from abbreviated expressions.
I didn't even read the recent posts on this thread, but you, tyciol, are anything but abbreviated. Perhaps you are retarded though... hahaha... muhahahaha... Sorry, I just feeling like saying that to you because you pissed Cookie off, and she seems like a kind person.
My statement was not that I was abbreviated, but that I was capable of being abbreviated. I was stating that I was not, so you are correct, but I'm not sure why you would state something obvious which I had already stayed. Perhaps I am retarded, perhaps anyone is. Bwaha. I am thoroughly pissed off. Anyway, pissing off kind people does such, I admit, it is not my intention, but avoiding issues, while okay in the short term, isn't a good long-term thing for people in general. Pick a time when people aren't emotional, but you can't avoid a topic for the idea of an emotional person becoming emotional over reading it, even if you are sad that it will upset trigger points.

Cookie wrote:
i wouldn't be so kind if i met someone in real life with an attitude like tyciol's about child abuse who was anywhere near my family.
Do you take emotional distancing as an equivilent of malice? Do you believe discussing things without constantly identifying how appalled you are means that you would do those things? This is a rather paranoid approach. Dangerous predators can easily present themselves as caring, if you only allow people overtly caring around your family, it will not necessarily protect them. On the other hand, people who say things they know would be alarming due to the alien appearance of it, do not fear your reactions, and invite your criticism of them as an individual. This seems less a risk to sneak in and do something you would not notice, and do something you refuse to believe could happen and ignore the victims' claims as troublemaking. I would watch closely those whose actions do not invite your gaze and alarm. For example, those who operate within religions of love, or caring parents, or saintly individuals. I would think CoG would be a good example of how appearances and claims of goodness would be misleading, and how those condemned as those with sinful thinking might be listened to.
 
Cookie 2
 
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2008 04:23 pm
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
TYCIOL,

Quote:
Knowing things exist, on the other hand, doesn't seem instrinsically harmful.
no. but there is a time and a place to introduce things to children. anyway, that is not what i was talking about (knowing that things exist).

Quote:
The trauma of knowledge of bad things is less than the trauma of being subjected to them, so this is an example where a controlled loss of innocence benefits someone.
it seems that you think i was speaking hypothetically. i was subjected. it was not an example that i was giving, nor was it a "controlled loss of innocence" in any way.

Quote:
Respect should never be something you are pressured to have for someone simply for being something they did nothing to accomplish (such as ageing or being born a man), but something you have for individuals of your own free will based upon appreciating their qualities.
are you kidding? do you think we had this kind of freedom in the family. wow. that would have been nice.
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 12:29 pm
Re:
max wrote:
evanman wrote:
Max hasn't even commented on my comment about Berg being excommunicated if he were alive today.


The Reverend David Berg is not alive and I do not deal in hypothetical questions.
Next you will be saying that Jesus, Mohamed et al would be excommunicated!
You should be ashamed of yourself for saying such things!
I know that you hate me and members of TFI but, and I will quote

"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you."
Joh.3:13 (See also Matt.10:36)


Love & Forgiveness

Max



i am confused by this statement are you saying that jesus and mohamed sexually physically and mentally abused minors?
because the person asking the question about whether berg would be ex comminicated was referring to his abuse of underage children, i dont think bringing jesus into this is relevent because he didnt sexually abuse minors and was NOT a member of TFI so how could he be excomminicated?
berg did do the above therefore he should be ex commincated even in death.
maybe then the family would have a chance of putting the past behind them.
whilst they continue to put this vile being on a pedastal and ignore history by still worshipping him there is no future of normality and respect from the outside world for the family.
by thinking that ignoring a child abuser and still classing him as a leader even in passing you will go to heaven even i , who am not religious, would say this is unlikely!!!!!
 
Arssle
 
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 04:21 pm
Re: Re:
justareader wrote:

berg did do the above therefore he should be ex commincated even in death.

Dig up his bones and put them on probation. Laughing

(I got what you meant but I couldn't help myself)
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 10:49 am
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
dig up his bones and **** on em!!!! Laughing
 
Thorwald 1
 
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 01:55 pm
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
Arssle wrote:
Dig up his bones and put them on probation.


That would be difficult; Berg was cremated in Portugal. No bones to be found.
 
Arssle
 
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 06:10 pm
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
Thorwald wrote:
Arssle wrote:
Dig up his bones and put them on probation.


That would be difficult; Berg was cremated in Portugal. No bones to be found.

Damn. Well ******* on his ashes is just as good. do you suppose they keep him in an urn in zerby's living room? That'd be fucking creepy.
 
Cookie 2
 
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 06:57 pm
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
no, they don't. Rolling Eyes

you have a morbid sense of humor. Laughing
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2008 03:23 am
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
Arssle wrote:
Thorwald wrote:
Arssle wrote:
Dig up his bones and put them on probation.


That would be difficult; Berg was cremated in Portugal. No bones to be found.

Damn. Well ******* on his ashes is just as good. do you suppose they keep him in an urn in zerby's living room? That'd be **** creepy.


LOLLOL Laughing

actually tho in all serious does anyone know where he requested his ashes be scattered?
i would not be surprised if they were on show somewhere,within TFI as a shrine!!!!! Confused
 
Cookie 2
 
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2008 12:39 pm
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
berg always requested a simple burial. he did not know that eventually he would be cremated. nor did his staff know until after the fact, so i have heard from knowledgable sources. what i understand is that in many parts of the world, there are rental burial grounds and you pay like for 5 years at a time, and after that you have the option to pay more money to renew your loved ones resting place for another few years or so. but if no one claims the bones after that specified time, they cremate the bones and bury someone else there. from what i hear they forgot, or did not understand about this and because they did not pay after the first specified amount of time, the cemetary buried someone else there, and cremated burg's bones. normally, they would for a time keep the ashes in some public pigeon hole locked place for a few years and then get rid of it after if no one claims them. zerby and co have no need to carry around ashes from place to place so i seriously doubt they have them. burg never placed any importance on what happened to his body after death.

do any of you remember that letter where he talks about just burrying him with his bible in a white sheet, or something like that?
 
Mary Jane Henry
 
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 02:28 pm
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
No, I don't remember that - but - in the Bible only the evil get cremated. All of God's people are buried. Check it out. Burning someone's bones seems to have been kind of a curse on them so it sure fits Bergie boy!
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 02:55 pm
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
Mary Jane Henry wrote:
No, I don't remember that - but - in the Bible only the evil get cremated. All of God's people are buried. Check it out. Burning someone's bones seems to have been kind of a curse on them so it sure fits Bergie boy!
Three cheers for superstition!
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 04:22 pm
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
"It was with great dismay that we came to realize that during a transitional stage of our movement, from 1978 until approximately 1985, there were cases when minors were subject to sexually inappropriate advances. In hindsight, we realize we should have anticipated potential problems arising from our liberal stance toward sexuality and established more stringent rules."

**************************************************************************************************************************************************
Max, you're a fuck head! Just because kids get abused every day (your stupid percentages) and because you "realized" that you had to establish more stringent rules doesn't make it right. I was born into the group and left waaaaay after "the charter" came out (a couple of years ago) and even though I saw how things changed after the charter it still doesn't erase what DID happen before, you cannot say "you're sorry", change your rules and hope everything turns into all-goodness. If you've never walked on someone's shoes you'll never know how it feels! So fuck you for telling us to shush when you (seem to) have never been abused. Why don't you come back when you've been raped or beat or starved or abused in some way and then we resume this conversation?
Fuck your love and forgiveness! -You shouldn't give away what costs you nothing to give.

P.S. And for your info, I KNOW and EXPERIENCED first hand other forms of abuse as well and as recently as 7 years ago, I've also seen many people being treated VERY unfair and bullied all in the name of your "queen"....so spare me your excuses, I well know all of them!
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 04:55 pm
Re: Age Restrictions for Sexual Relationships
All of you people in this "Family" are all full of shit. US Laws state No person over the age of 18 is allowed having any kind of Sexual Matter with anyone under the age of 18. All you people are dumb for Believeing this Berg Guy. Don't you see the moral aspects of this being Wrong. Anyone who has sexual relations with any one under the age of 18 with the person doing it is over 18 is sick and wrong. that just plan out and out makes them Child Molesters. I have pity for all ur souls that believe in this horse shit. As a us citizen I do not understand why why why you or anyone would do such a hanious act. All the child molesters need to be sent to prison and NEVER let out.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 12:30:17