| Author | Message | ||
     willie_tasby New member Username: willie_tasby Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 76.112.28.247 |
Here is the link to the entire article in case you only got the first part. http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general943.html | ||
| graceisenough New member Username: graceisenough Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 71.99.62.86 |
Thank you willie_tasby. I hope this helps people who want to be free or help someone to be free from this mind control. | ||
| stoflet New member Username: stoflet Post Number: 6 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.106.223.5 |
Is there any responses to the CII article in this month's issue of Indianapolis Monthly? | ||
| baxter Junior Member Username: baxter Post Number: 38 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.67.148.242 |
Actually, I was just sitting and going through the August issue of the magazine and there are not comments or letters. It looks like the letters in the August issue are in reference to the June issue, so I am thinking they are a couple of months back. If I see anything in the September issue, I'll be sure to let everyone know. | ||
| cult_fighter New member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 16 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Actually, I'm surprised that Mike and his followers are so AFRAID of defending their group. Some really damaging things were pointed out in the article, about which I asked a set of questions to clarify. Those damaging points stand as TRUTH unless they can refute them. Let's give them another chance: (1) Why does a neutral reporter, with no axe to grind, come to the conclusion that Mike's group is "Indy's Scariest Group"? (2) Why is a group that CLAIMS to be following Jesus so UNwelcoming of anyone coming into their neighborhood? (including this reporter) (3) Why did Mike claim to be a "high-paying executive" at Rand McNally when their records show he was merely a printing press room supervisor? (4) Why did Gene Fredette say, "When you confess <sins> to <mike>, you're signing your death warrant?" (5) Why did Mike "set himself apart" by buying a house when no one else in the group owned one? (6) Why have Mike, Chris Olive, and his own betraying brother Dave described Tim Szazinkski as such an evil, abusive man -- yet this totally neutral reporter found Tim to be normal, believable, and sympathetic? (7) Why does Mike and his group describe "anyone outside the group, including self-proclaiming Christians, as 'pagans'"? (8) Why did Mike Peters think he had any right to arrange the marriage for Janis Gaines? How cultic is THAT??? (9) Why did Mike clearly IDENTIFY WITH cult leader David Koresh, showing sympathy for him and his group, after the Waco tragedy? Was Mike making it clear that he and Koresh have clear simularities? (10) In the article, Lisa M is quoted as saying "If you weren't part of the church, you were going to hell." Does Mike (and anyone in his group) deny this? Is disagreement with Mike Peters a ticket to hell? (11) Why, when Tim Szazinski questioned the beliefs of Mike Peters, did his wife and children "literally plug their ears with their fingers" and called 911 to claim "he was verbally abusing" them? What IS "verbal abuse" and why does it merit calling the authorities? (12) Why can Mike Peters NEVER answer his critics without name-calling? In the article, he calls his "detractors" -- a "psychotic and wife-abusive handful of people". (13) Why did Mike "demand" a spreadsheet with the names of "sources" who were making accusations against him? What did he plan to do with that spreadsheet? How would he have harmed the people on that spreadsheet? (14) Why did Mike Peters, the man who spends hours on golf courses, clearly DUCK an interview with this neutral reporter? WHAT was he afraid of? Why is he afraid of answering questions when he can't CONTROL the conversation? (15) By ducking the reporter's interview, does Mike realize that he missed his chance to have better pictures taken for the article? Does he realize how PATHETIC he looks in the pictures in the article? Does Mike Peters really look that bad? Yikes! (16) Why were the "gray-haired man" and the "tall, lanky dark-haired man with crooked teeth" so UNFRIENDLY to this reporter? Why do they claim they are "protecting their families" by turning away this neutral reporter? What else are they willing to do to "protect their families"? (17) Why does almost everything in this article sound so much like the Jim Jones story -- just a few years before Jonestown? | ||
| willie_tasby New member Username: willie_tasby Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 76.112.28.247 |
These are 17 excellent questions. I lost a family member to this group some 7 years ago to the satellite group in Charlotte, North Carolina. Our family was confused and angered by the sudden withdrawal from family by this person. All ties to former friends and family were altered and cut to a bare minimum. All other Christian organizations were severely criticized. We weren't sure of what church this family member joined. We were given countless "allathisfeet" articles and were referred to the web site. I had seen the name of Mike P mentioned in one of the books, but did not know that the P stood for Peters until 2005. I frantically searched the web for any information on Mike Peters and cults in Indianapolis, but came up empty. Then last week I again searched for any information on Mike Peters sand Indianapolis cults. Surprise surprise, I hit the mother load of information from this site and on indianapoliscult.com. I have read many posts of personal tragedy caused by this cult. I now have a clearer understanding of my family member's strange behavior. I suspected a cult at play for quite awhile, but had no proof until now. I have met several members of the group in Charlotte. Some of the ones I have met are now excommunicated. But the behavior of this group is right out of Mike Peters’ playbook. These people act like "zombies", giving canned responses to every situation and question. I no longer am angry with my family member. I feel that this person is brain washed and under mind control by the group. I haven't talked to my family member for 8 months. The communication from this person has trickled down to an occasional voice message. My fear is that as Mike Peters is now cornered that he will do something irrational ala David Koresh or those other nuts of Heaven's Gate. I realize that prayer is our best hope. I want to thank all of you who have helped to expose this dangerous and hurtful cult. I feel vindicated to know the truth. I may never get my loved one back, but I am confident that together we can make a difference by preventing others to join Mike's group. Sincerely, "Willie" | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
There are a few problems with some of these questions. Most notable is that you refer to the reporter at neutral. The fact that he was doing a news story about cults makes him non-neutral. Obviously someone gave a tip to either the magazine or the writer about this group. So I have to assume that he has some pre-conceived notions about what he was going to find before he put his pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard). -Another problem I saw was with the signs about no soliciting. From what I gather, this was a neighborhood effort to curb solicitation...not a church-headed effort to scare people off. The church doesn't own the entire neighborhood, right? And was it only church members that displayed these signs? -I don't remember reading anything where Mike Peters said that he idnetified with David Koresh...only that he warned people that the government could do that to their group as well. Question #9 is a good example of the kind of arguments I really don't care for. If you're going to make a statement, make a statement. If you're going to ask a question, ask a question. But don't try to do both at the same time. -Question 10 is silly because it's misrepresenting what's being said. I beleive that "the church" that's being refered to is THE CHURCH...not Mike Peter's group. That's how I read it. -Question 14 seems like a jab more than a question. What does the fact the he spends "hours on a golf course" have to do with hmi ducking a reporter? And over what period of time did he spend these hours on the golf course? I've probably spent hours on a golf course in my life time. I'm sure many of you have too. -Question 15...another jab. Who cares how bad he looks in the pictures. I'm sure we've all seen tabloid-style pictures where the absolute worst picture of the bunch is used in negative stories. I'm not saying that's what was done. Maybe he DOES look that bad...haha. But why is his personal appearance even a concern here? -Question 16...they didn't exactly turn the reporter away. He was about to leave anyways. haha. And what length would you guys go to protect your family? And what's with that question anyways? It seems like a thinly veiled implication that they are capable of violence or something. But nothing even close to that was ever mentioned. -And finally...question 17: You tell me. Why DOES it sound that way? Two choices, really. Either it really is that way, or because you have a non-neutral reporter and non-neutral readers. -Sorry...I didn't intend this to turn into a question-by-question break down. I think the other questions are valid and need to be addressed somehow. I just hope that the questions are meant to seek answers...not just to slander the group. I know there are people that could see this either way. | ||
| joythruchrist New member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 19 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
I think cult_fighter meant Tony was neutral in the sense that he had never been in the group, and has no family in the group. Otherwise, you are correct. I believe it was only CII members using those particular signs, and apparently they do own much of that particular neighborhood. Question #10? I think it is quite likely that Lisa means that it was an accepted notion that if you were not a part of CII you were going to hell. Why don't we ask her to clarify though? I think maybe c_f's reasoning for mentioning the golf courses was because his excuses for not meeting with the reporter were lame. He has much time for golf, but little time to talk to a reporter? Question 17? I'm not sure why neutrality is even an issue. I think the facts speak for themselves. Arranged marriages? Alienation of affection? Etc, etc, etc. I do agree that personal attacks are completely unnecessary, and I couldn't care less how Mike looks, or if he golfs all day long. But I would like to see a member of the group, or better yet, Mike himself address the claims of those who contributed to the article. Jen joythruChrist@gmail.com | ||
| baxter Junior Member Username: baxter Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 198.172.207.70 |
Obviously I don’t know who you are, know_won, or what your interest is in this group or this particular forum or for that matter why you have problems with the questions that CF has asked. The conclusion you came to as to why the reporter even wrote the article is erroneous. No one “tipped off” the magazine or the reporter. I know why he wrote the article and if you want to know, ask him, he’s accessible. About the signs, IF it was a NEIGHBORHOOD effort to curb solicitation why didn’t ALL the neighbors post the sign? I think there is VERY little doubt that the ones who posted it were a part of Mike’s cult. It isn’t very difficult to go to the houses who do not have the signs posted and ask them if they are a part of the group. Also, if it was such an “innocent” and PURE thing, why was the sign removed? “Question #9 is a good example of the kind of arguments I really don't care for.” And you are…..? “-Question 10 is silly because it's misrepresenting what's being said. I believe that "the church" that's being referred to is THE CHURCH...not Mike Peter's group. That's how I read it.” Again, I think you have a problem with CONTEXT…http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/25121.html?1166921357 “-Question 14 seems like a jab more than a question. What does the fact the he spends "hours on a golf course" have to do with hmi ducking a reporter? And over what period of time did he spend these hours on the golf course? I've probably spent hours on a golf course in my life time. I'm sure many of you have too.” Never been on a golf course. However, if you go back over the comments on this ENTIRE forum you MIGHT find the problem people have with Mike’s golfing habit. Sounds like he needs to become a “spiritual golfing EUNUCH”. http://search.allathisfeet.com/search?ie=utf8&q=spiritual+eunuch&site=AAHF_One&output=xml_no_dtd&client=AAHF_One&access=p&spell=1&ip=198.172.207.70&proxystylesheet=AAHF_One&oe=utf8&filter=p I agree with you on question 15. NOT an issue here. Question 16, what “danger” did the reporter impose that they couldn’t answer a few questions? Question 17, what “church” do you know of that does NOT welcome others? Christ.myrighteousness@gmail.com | ||
| joythruchrist New member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Otherwise, you are correct. I should have reread your statement about the reporter before saying that. I actually know very little about the reporter or how it all began. I guess there is a point to consider that he tried very hard to interview those in support of CII but was turned away multiple times. And his own opinion of the strange emails he did receive from Mike are in the article. Again, I'm not sure why his neutrality even matters. Use your own discernment and read the statements by former members to get the gist of life in CII. | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Obviously I don’t know who you are, know_won, or what your interest is in this group or this particular forum or for that matter why you have problems with the questions that CF has asked. -Hey man...if you don't know, just ask. I'll explain it for you. haha. With each statement, I also posted my "problems" with that specific question. The conclusion you came to as to why the reporter even wrote the article is erroneous. No one “tipped off” the magazine or the reporter. I know why he wrote the article and if you want to know, ask him, he’s accessible. -I have to disagree with part of your statement there. Obviously someone tipped him off about the group. Otherwise, how would he even know of their existence or that some people consider then a cult? Perhaps he stumbled across this forum. Perhaps he or his family and/or friends have been hurt by this group. Either way, he went into the story knowing he was doing a piece on cults. About the signs, IF it was a NEIGHBORHOOD effort to curb solicitation why didn’t ALL the neighbors post the sign? I think there is VERY little doubt that the ones who posted it were a part of Mike’s cult. It isn’t very difficult to go to the houses who do not have the signs posted and ask them if they are a part of the group. Also, if it was such an “innocent” and PURE thing, why was the sign removed? -You mean this sign? http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z238/know_won/181042926341.jpg http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z238/know_won/181042892293.jpg I was curious so I drove through. Obviously the sign is still there. Talk about unfriendly...they apparently don't allow trucks in there either!!! ha ha. Just kidding. But anyways, a bunch of houses have the stickers. All over the neighborhood, too. Do they have a police officer in their group too? Because a house with a police car displays the sticker. Instead of going to the sign places where the signs AREN'T displayed, you should go to the house where they ARE displayed and ask if they are a part of the group. I bet that not all of them are. “Question #9 is a good example of the kind of arguments I really don't care for.” And you are…..? -I guess I'm not following your question. Please explain. “-Question 10 is silly because it's misrepresenting what's being said. I believe that "the church" that's being referred to is THE CHURCH...not Mike Peter's group. That's how I read it.” Again, I think you have a problem with CONTEXT…http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/25121.html?1166921357 -I've posted twice and you already have formed opinions about my ability to understand context??? ha ha. You preach context, but then you point me off to another thread. Now how exactly was I supposed to know that this question and that thread were related? ha ha. Also, if you could point me to the exact portion you are refering to, that would be a huge help. | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
“-Question 14 seems like a jab more than a question. What does the fact the he spends "hours on a golf course" have to do with him ducking a reporter? And over what period of time did he spend these hours on the golf course? I've probably spent hours on a golf course in my life time. I'm sure many of you have too.” Never been on a golf course. However, if you go back over the comments on this ENTIRE forum you MIGHT find the problem people have with Mike’s golfing habit. Sounds like he needs to become a “spiritual golfing EUNUCH”. http://search.allathisfeet.com/search?ie=utf8&q=spiritual+eunuch&site=AAHF_One&output=xml_no_dtd&client=AAHF_One&access=p&spell=1&ip=198.172.207.70&proxystylesheet=AAHF_One&oe=utf8&filter=p -I never said I didn't understand the problem people have about him playing golf. I'm simply wondering what that has to do with him not giving an interview. I agree with you on question 15. NOT an issue here. Question 16, what “danger” did the reporter impose that they couldn’t answer a few questions? -Well...at the time, probably none. You don't have to feel threatened in order to decline comments. But now, after reading the article, it's clear that he did pose a potential threat. The reporter gave out Mike's name, the name of his neighborhood as well as the street that runs through it, the street name and hundred block where he lives, and a description of his house. That's scary. Question 17, what “church” do you know of that does NOT welcome others? -That has nothing to do with what I posted. haha. How did you become a part of the group if they don't welcome people? | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 6 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
I think cult_fighter meant Tony was neutral in the sense that he had never been in the group, and has no family in the group. Otherwise, you are correct. -Well, those aren't the only criteria for determining if someone if neutral. I believe it was only CII members using those particular signs, and apparently they do own much of that particular neighborhood. -I drove through and I don't think you are correct. Question #10? I think it is quite likely that Lisa means that it was an accepted notion that if you were not a part of CII you were going to hell. Why don't we ask her to clarify though? -That's a good suggestion. I think maybe c_f's reasoning for mentioning the golf courses was because his excuses for not meeting with the reporter were lame. He has much time for golf, but little time to talk to a reporter? -It's not really fair for you to count his time for him. He could have spent day and night twiddling his thumbs. It's still his decision to not meet with the reporter. Question 17? I'm not sure why neutrality is even an issue. I think the facts speak for themselves. Arranged marriages? Alienation of affection? Etc, etc, etc. -Well...neutrality is an issue because several times in this set of questions the reporter was labeled as such. I suppose if it really wasn't an issue, it wouldn't have been mentioned so many times. I thing there was only one arranged marriage (not marriages) mentioned in the article. Do you know of more? The young lady interviewed even said she agreed to the marriage because she wasn't successful in past relationships. If Mike forced it on her, she didn't really do much to stop it. And the withholding of affection is a Biblical principle, really. Well all stumble. We all fall. But if we keep purposely tripping over the same thing over and over, God does say that we should be cut off from fellowship. Remember...a little yeast leavens the whole batch. I do agree that personal attacks are completely unnecessary, and I couldn't care less how Mike looks, or if he golfs all day long. But I would like to see a member of the group, or better yet, Mike himself address the claims of those who contributed to the article. -Yeah...I agree. | ||
| joythruchrist New member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 21 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
-Well, those aren't the only criteria for determining if someone if neutral. I don't recall saying they were. -I drove through and I don't think you are correct. Ok. -It's not really fair for you to count his time for him. He could have spent day and night twiddling his thumbs. It's still his decision to not meet with the reporter. I don't count his time for him. As I mentioned, I don't care if he golfs all day. Yes, it was his decision, but given the outcome, it may not have been a wise one. Whatever your thoughts are regarding the withholding affection doctrine, I venture to say it is wrongly practiced there when godly relatives and spouses are ignored simply because they don't hold to CII's teachings. May I ask you, just what is your interest and involvement with this group? I saw on the other thread that you said yes when Bax asked if you had family there. Could you elaborate any? Thanks, Jen | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Well, first of all I want to respond to your replies. It seemed silly to keep copying and pasting because the post ends up being too big. ha ha. As far as you not saying that neutrality is dependent on only a few things...true. You didn't say those exact words. But I would assume that it's OK for me to make statements even if you don't bring them up first. You had mentioned that the poster of the 17 questions meant the reporter was neutral in the sense that he met a few pieces of criteria. I thought it was important to state that the few things that you mentioned, even though 100% accurate, didn't mean the gentleman was neutral. With all of the mentions of his neutrality, it seemed important to bring up. You mentioned that you don't count his time, but you seemed to want to hold him accountable for not taking the time to talk to the reporter. You even said that he had "much" time for golf but "little" time for reporters. I think your point was clearly that if he has x amount of time for golf, surely he could spare some of that golf time in order to speak to a reporter. Even though you didn't use numbers, it just seemed like you were counting his time to me. AS far as the withholding affection...I can't say whether or not they practice it correctly. I think they truly believe that "their" teachings are Biblical. So when they see someone...relative or not...not obeying the teachings, they feel it's a responsibility to obey God's command to withhold affection. Jesus even said that if you're going to pick up your cross and follow him, you're going to have to leave everything behind...including family...if they don't follow too. I don't think that's debatable. It seems like it isn't the teaching that's the problem, but rather the application? Is that fair to say? I really don't want to go into details yet because honestly, I wasn't that warmly received on this forum. | ||
| joythruchrist New member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 22 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
...It's still his decision to not meet with the reporter. One more quick thought on this. Yes, it was his decision not to meet with the reporter, but the way he did it was poor form. Yes, I'll meet with you... No, I won't... Ok, let's play racquetball... No, something came up... Let's do lunch... Sorry, have to be 'away' for quite some time... Etc. etc. etc. Why couldn't he just be up front and honest and tell him he had no intention of meeting with him? Because if he did have intention to meet with him, he certainly could have found time and a way. It's my understanding that he has no job. The issue for me was not how he spends his time, or even if he chose not to meet the reporter, but the fact that he said he would and then said he wouldn't so many times. Kind of like doing the Kerry flipflop. I personally never said that the reporter was neutral. I don't think anyone involved could be completely neutral. Anyone who reads this forum or talks to anyone involved becomes not neutral. Which is why jury members are sequestered during a trial. Exposure to any facts will render one not neutral. I am sorry you didn't feel warmly received. This was certainly not my intention. | ||
| cult_fighter New member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 18 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Know_won: Welcome! You are warmly received! NOW, please tell us the TRUTH -- is your name Mike, Chris, or Dan? At least give us a Yes or No on that one! If you can't, you are clearly a follower of Mike Peters. His Peterites seem to be incapable of answering a simple yes/no question. No offense, but I think your Peterite credentials are pretty clear with your "little leaven" quote and your defense of "withholding affection" from spouses! Wake up, man! We're talking about wives who withhold love, affection, sex, touch, eye contact, and even prayer from their God-given husbands! Why? Not because of deep sin, but because this man "rebels" against the teachings of Mike Peters. This has happened over and over! If you are a real Peterite, you won't care. If not, wake up!! We're talking about wives, under the direction of Mike, telling their children that "Daddy hates Jesus" -- again, only because Daddy has a deep dislike for Mike Peters. Is THAT ever right? Could you EVER justify a wife telling her children that "Daddy hates Jesus", when that Daddy is a professing Christian? Any chance I'll get a yes/no answer on this one? Again, the issue isn't Mike's golf time, it's his DUCKING the reporter. He was afraid. Afraid of the truth. Finally, this reporter WAS neutral. He's an award-winning journalist. It's called "investigative journalism" -- heard of it? He wasn't tipped off, he found out about Mike Peters and his group from FactNet. In the article, he's very fair with Mike and his group -- never says they ARE a cult, only that many detractors consider them to be a cult. Honestly, I think he was overlay fair with Mike. He could have mentioned Mike's SECRET EMAILS TO OTHER MEN'S WIVES -- but he didn't. | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 8 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Yeah. I understand what you're saying. But who said he wasn't being honest? What if he really planed on meeting him, but just assigned zero priority to it? I mean, if anything church or family related came up, he would probably feel compelled to cancel. I can't fault anyone for that. Do we know if he did or did not go out of town? Do we know for sure that he has no job? I don't know the answers to any of those, but I don't think anyone else on this forum does either. I know that if someone wanted to do a story on me and I felt like it might be a negative story regardless of what I told him, I would be hesitant too. As far at the reporting being neutral...no one ever said you claimed the reporter was neutral. My initial post was to the guy that posted the 17 questions. Neutrality was an issue because he used that word four times, and I don't think it applies. Please understand that my discussions with you about neutrality are merely the result of you defending (sort of?) or at least offering explanation for the use of the word in the 17 questions. I'm curious...if you don't think the reporter was neutral either, why did you feel like you needed to explain the poster's use of the word in his questions? And regarding not feeling welcome..don't worry, it wasn't you.  | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 9 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Cult_fighter...I hate statements like "if you don't do 'x', that must mean 'y'". Even so...you asked, so I'll tell. No...my name isn't any of those. As far as the leaven quote...that's actually not a "Peterite" philosophy. That's a Biblical philosophy. And no...I'm not offended. As far as the withholding affection debate goes, that too is a Biblical principle...although you probably won't see it titled as such in the Bible. Like I said before...the principle can't be denied, but the application can. I have no idea if it was used correctly or not. Neither do you unless it happened directly to you. I've learned that there are two sides to every story. Do you have a list of the "deep sins"? ha ha. I'm kind of being sarcastic about that, but I'm serious too. Sin is sin, right? You're not "cut off" for sinning. You're "cut off" for sinning and not repenting. I'll agree that simply disagreeing with Mike Peters is not a sin. Disagreeing with the Bible is, though. So if that was the root of the "withholding affection" then it's valid. If not, then yeah...there was/is a problem. With the golf issue...if the issue wasn't golf, why was it included in the question? I responded to the rest of your comment in my last post. Unless you're a mind reader, you have no basis to say the guy was neutral. I realize you can't prove motives that aren't there, but you can show motives that are there...or at least seem to be there. So he was tipped off by the forums. I never meant that someone had to have called him and asked him to investigate...although I suppose that could have happened too. He read a forum about a cult and he went to find info for his story. In fact, the forums themselves gave him information for the story. What if he had determined they AREN'T a cult? Would he have written a story about that? No...because that's not news-worthy. You investigate something because you think there is something there worth investigating. HE got very little info from Mike Peters and the rest of the group, so his story mainly came from the forums and people from the forums...which is what made his want to write the story. Absolutely no way he was 100% neutral. Thank you for the welcome, by the way. | ||
| cult_fighter New member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 19 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Know_won: I noticed you ignored the "Daddy hates Jesus" questions. I'll assume your FORGOT to respond to them -- could you PLEASE respond now? Is it EVER justified for a Mom (encouraged by Mike) to tell her children that "Daddy hates Jesus"? It's especially repugnant when Daddy actually loves Jesus -- but just doesn't love Mike Peters! Another thing you've never commented on: WHY did Mike Peters demand (from the reporter) a spreadsheet with the names of his accusers? Why does he need their names? Just suggesting, but do you think he intended to retaliate against them (as he's done in the past)? Sorry, know_won, I think it's very revealing that you find the reporter listing Mike's address as "scary" -- yet you don't think his wanting this spreadsheet is scary. Yes, disagreeing with the Bible is sin. But disagreeing with the Bible AS INTERPRETED BY MIKE PETERS is NOT sin! That "sin" was the cause of these wives withholding all forms of love from their husbands! Believe me, I DO know! I've talked to the husbands (and some of the wives). Most disturbing was when I encouraged these husbands and wives to simply pray together, Mike Peters was on the other side TELLING the wife to refuse to pray with her God-given Christian husband! It was in Mike's best interest that this couple NOT reconcile -- he's a home-wrecker. Please STOP defending him and wake up! The reporter was 100% neutral. He's an award-winning journalist who was doing an investigative news story. If he had determined the group was not a cult, you're right, he would have filed no story. It wouldn't have been news. If a reporter is told there's been a disaster someplace and he then finds out there's no disaster, of course he's not going to report the "no disaster" story. By "neutral", I mean that he was 100% FAIR with the Mike and his group! He gathered up all the evidence against them -- and then gave them a FAIR chance to respond. You said "HE got very little info from Mike Peters and the rest of the group, so his story mainly came from the forums and people from the forums" -- so WHOSE fault is that????? Not the reporter's! Mike was given chance after chance to give "his side", but he refused. To use legal terms, Mike pleaded "No Contest" to the charges. When a defendant pleads "No Contest", it's usually an admission of guilt -- only the defendant wants to avoid saying so. Until Mike actually contests these allegations, he is "guilty as charged". Like I said, he'll probably respond 12 years from now -- when he thinks those he lies about aren't paying attention. That is what he did with the 1994 Indy News story. | ||
| joythruchrist New member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 23 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
cult_fighter, I believe know_one did say that the other questions you raised needed to be addressed: I think the other questions are valid and need to be addressed somehow. Is there any possibility of giving know_one the benefit of the doubt and just having a peaceful dialogue? | ||
| cult_fighter New member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 20 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
OK, I guess I missed that. Maybe the fact that he covered that admission with a "I hope they're not meant to SLANDER the group" in the same sentence threw me off. That's the problem, Know_one, you keep using Peterite words. They always worry that, when we question their practices, we are "slandering" them. Then Mike gets on his soapbox and says his critics are breaking federal law! This Mike is the same man who openly slanders anyone who openly criticizes him. Ask Denny, or Tim Sz, or Janice. Look in the article itself, where Mike uses a blanket-statement, painting all of his detractors as "a psychotic and wife-abusive handful of people". WHO is the slanderer there? If I've come across as annoyed by you, Know_one, it's because you come on here questioning the fairness and integrity of this journalist, claiming he wasn't neutral. I personally tried to push the journalist into discussing Mike's SECRET EMAILS TO OTHER MEN'S WIVES. I really thought the article should mention them! But this journalist, because he wanted to be "fair", left that out. So he goes out of his way, trying to be fair to an obvious cult, and you come here to question his neutrality! Goodness!! Finally, my questions about the wives who (at Mike's prodding) tell their children that "Daddy hates Jesus" -- those were secondary questions, asked directly of Know_one. They are questions he has not yet answered. | ||
| joythruchrist New member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 24 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Just realized I spelled your moniker wrong, know_won. My apologies. | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 15 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
I'm going to repsond to the second post you made. Both were full of ranting, but the second one seemed less so. One thing that you need to realize is that you're not the judge and jury of the world...let alone this forum. Just because someone doesn't answer a question don't mean they are hiding from something. Using this argument, everyone would have to answer every question ever posed to them for fear that their silence will condemn them. People have choices and free will. If I choose to not answer a question, back off and respect that. Remember, I am under no obligation to answer any questions. You will not bully me into doing anything I don't want to do. You're as controlling as you say Mike Peters is! You want your questions answer and you want them now! Well sorry to disappoint you. Try again with a different attitude and I guarantee you will have different results. | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 16 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
It's OK about the misspelling. It doesn't both me. Honestly, I didn't even notice it. | ||
| joythruchrist New member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 25 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Yeah, I knew it was a minor thing, but many people who have used this particular forum have had their monikers misspelled as a slam against them, so I wanted to make it clear that it was just an oversight on my part -- not a slam. Not that I necessarily thought it would be taken that way, but I wanted to cover my bases. For example gottapost has been called gottapuke, and ultimatetruthseeker has been called ultimatetruthtweaker. Sad, but true. So anyway... moving right along... | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 17 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
no_one was taken...so I was creative. know_one, no_won, know_juan.....anything works. ha ha. | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 26 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
know_won, I just realized I didn't answer your other questions. Do we know if he did or did not go out of town? Do we know for sure that he has no job? No, I don't know the answers to these questions. But I do know that I had a personal communication going with Mike which he cut off at a pivotal part of the conversation with one of those 'I'll be gone on vacation' type emails, which he also apparently sent to the reporter around the same time. I have since learned that he was corresponding with others during that time period. He clearly chose who to respond to and who not to respond to. Yes, that is his choice, but the point to be made is the matter of dishonesty. He sent out emails to the reporter and myself that he was away and unable to communicate, yet he communicated with others. I believe that to be dishonest. And the matter of saying he would meet with Tony, and then backing out numerous times? I also believe that to be dishonest as well. That is, of course, my opinion. But if someone was going to do an article on me and I thought it might have a negative slant, you can bet I'd want to talk to the reporter. I personally have nothing to hide, and if there were no problems in Indy, it seems that they would want to make that clear. why did you feel like you needed to explain the poster's use of the word in his questions? Oh, I don't know. Apparently, I wasn't exactly correct anyway as to how c_f meant 'neutral'. jen joythruChrist@gmail.com | ||
| cult_fighter New member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 21 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Know_won: This is a forum. People ask questions and people answer questions. When people don't have an answer, they don't answer them -- because there is NO (credible) answer! Can I assume that's why you won't address the "Daddy hates Jesus" thing? Stop with "bullying" and "controlling" silliness! THAT is Peterite talk! It's Mike and his gang who call his forum "persecution" and "terrorism". I've teased them that they should apply to Voice of the Martyrs for some assistance because of all the "persecution" they've received. Seriously, know_won, let's have a discussion. But to do so, answer a few questions -- and not always on YOUR terms. What about the wives who tell their children (at Mike's prodding) that "Daddy hates Jesus". Could you EVER justify that? This is not made up -- it's happened MANY times, and Mike is always behind it. This is NOT bullying, it's BEGGING! Answer a silly question! Never mind the word "neutral", but do you think the Indy Monthly reporter was FAIR with Mike & his gang?? Why or why not? Don't you think he was being OVERLY fair when he didn't mention Mike's SECRET EMAILS TO OTHER MEN'S WIVES? That's like writing a story about Bill Clinton and not mentioning Monica. | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
know_won said: And the withholding of affection is a Biblical principle, really. Well all stumble. We all fall. But if we keep purposely tripping over the same thing over and over, God does say that we should be cut off from fellowship. Remember...a little yeast leavens the whole batch... I'll agree that simply disagreeing with Mike Peters is not a sin. Disagreeing with the Bible is, though. So if that was the root of the "withholding affection" then it's valid. If not, then yeah...there was/is a problem... It seems like it isn't the teaching that's the problem, but rather the application? Is that fair to say? know_won, I agree with you on all this. The problem is, indeed, mostly in the application. Though I haven't read everything as far as the teachings they have available. There could be real problems in the teaching as well. What has been stated, over and over again on this forum, is that family members of the CII who attend institutional churches of varying denominations are often sent CII's materials (and told they must repent), and if they do not agree with or follow the materials, they are cut off. These are often people who are following Christ! And they are cut off as though they are pagans, and are labeled as such. Often, this has happened within marriages where one spouse follows the teachings of CII and the other spouse does not, but is a Christian in word and practice. The 'offending' spouse is labeled a pagan and is denied the most basic of fellowship with the members of CII, including their own spouse. I don't know how much you have read of these boards or www.indianapoliscult.com but many testimonies are recorded. | ||
| willie_tasby New member Username: willie_tasby Post Number: 9 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 76.112.28.247 |
Cult Fighter, I agree with much of what you say, but I think that you should leave out the bashing of John Kerry and Bill Clinton. George Bush resides in a glass house called Iraq, so this is not the time to be throwing political stones. Regards, "Willie" | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 18 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Jen, I'm going to respond to both of your posts here. I don't know how to to a traditional "reply" in this forum, but I'll probably figure it out sooner or later. Regarding your email conversations with Mike Peters that he "cut off at a pivotal point"...I would assume there wasn't much chit chat between the two of you, so anytime that he "cut off" the conversation could probably have been considered a "pivotal point". And as far as him not returning emails...he emailed the reporter, implying he was out of the country. And if the implications about having to come up with makeshift internet access, I'm sure he was choosy about who he replied too. I know I would be if I was in a similar situation. As far as him agreeing to meet with the reporter and then canceling...that's not dishonest. Some might consider it rude...but I wouldn't call it dishonest unless he said he would be somewhere and then stood the guy up. And as far as wanting to meet with a reporter if he/she was doing a potentially negative story about you...he wasn't doing a story about Mike. He was doing a story on cults and wanted to include Mike in it. Big difference. This "withholding affection" is a pretty sensitive subject, it seems. If the teaching is true, but the application is wrong, then it's a bad situation. That's true in virtually every aspect of life...not just with Mike Peters. You say there COULD be real problems with Mike's teachings...but you haven't read them all. So is it fair to say that there could also be no problem? I need to know what "cut off" means. I know I've used it, but I need to know in what terms everyone else uses it. I think I even answered one of baxster's question by saying that someone I knew had "cut off" family while a part of this group. I need to take a step back and possibly rephrase that answer based on what "cut off" means. I will admit that I answered that one a little too quickly. You say that if people don't follow CII's materials, there are cut off. What if people don't follow the Bible? Is it OK to cut them off? I think that when the "cutting off" is going on, that person truly believes their spouse it violating a Biblical principle...not just some philosophy from a book that Mike wrote. Thank you for your replies. | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 19 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Know_won: This is a forum. People ask questions and people answer questions. When people don't have an answer, they don't answer them -- because there is NO (credible) answer! Can I assume that's why you won't address the "Daddy hates Jesus" thing? -How can you claim to know why people don't answer questions? And yes, you can assume that if you'd like. You would be wrong, but I guess that's one of the risks of assuming. Stop with "bullying" and "controlling" silliness! THAT is Peterite talk! It's Mike and his gang who call his forum "persecution" and "terrorism". I've teased them that they should apply to Voice of the Martyrs for some assistance because of all the "persecution" they've received. -Actually...I was hoping YOU would stop with the "bullying" and "controlling". I don't find either one silly. You've catagorized several things I've said as "Peterite talk". It's actually all English. It must be nice to be able to dismiss anything you want by just slapping that label on it. As far as what Mike and his group said about this forum...I don't care. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Seriously, know_won, let's have a discussion. But to do so, answer a few questions -- and not always on YOUR terms. What about the wives who tell their children (at Mike's prodding) that "Daddy hates Jesus". Could you EVER justify that? This is not made up -- it's happened MANY times, and Mike is always behind it. -Seriously...you're the one holding up the discussion. You ask for one, but then immediately attach rules to it. "Discussion" already has rules...and has since before any of us were born. Discussion does not require me to answer any questions. But of course if I do, I AM going to answer the questions on my terms...just as you're asking the questions on yours. I have no idea about this "Daddy hates Jesus" thing. I wasn't there. I would bet that you weren't either. This is NOT bullying, it's BEGGING! Answer a silly question! Never mind the word "neutral", but do you think the Indy Monthly reporter was FAIR with Mike & his gang?? Why or why not? Don't you think he was being OVERLY fair when he didn't mention Mike's SECRET EMAILS TO OTHER MEN'S WIVES? That's like writing a story about Bill Clinton and not mentioning Monica. -No...it's not begging. Begging has an essential component of humility. You say you want me to answer a silly question...but if it's so silly, why are you so hung up on it? I can't "nevermind" the word neutral because that is the word used in the questions that were posed. Fair and neutral are not synonyms. And no...I don't think that stopping just inches short of giving out Mike's address would be considered "fair". | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 28 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Here's a portion of the first line of the article: Two decades ago, a former minister named Mike Peters... I'd say the article was definitely about Mike and CII, not cults in general. Mike and everyone else knows that he is the leader of CII, so clearly Mike knew he would feature heavily in the article. And after a year or more on this forum, I am quite sure he was aware it wouldn't all be positive. My email conversation with Mike was cut off immediately when I informed him that I have absolute proof that he lied regarding some libel he wrote against my husband in this forum. Suddenly, he was unavailable via email 'for quite some time'. But he still was available to communicate with others. And he has never yet responded to my emails. As far as the term 'cut off', I'm sure that could be better explained by a family member who has experienced it. Also, I directed you to testimonies of those who had been cut off. I am trying to be very careful in communicating with you, but every thing I say seems to be met with a defense of Peters. I don't know who you are, but I am nobody in all this but someone that Peters hurt. My opinion doesn't matter one bit. People will come to their own conclusions. Have you come to yours, or are you questioning? | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 23 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
I don't think there's any question that the story was about a cult in Indianapolis. And he wanted to interview Mike as a part of the story. It's not like he was doing a documentary about Mike's personal life. | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 33 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
It was about that specific cult group in Indy, of which Mike is clearly the leader. As I said, of course he would figure prominently in the article. And knowing that he would, it might have been wiser to talk to the reporter. I will agree with you on one point. I thought narrowing down the address was not cool either. Nor was the picture of his house (if that was it). But if we are to be fair, there have been many very personal details of former members lives brought out by Mike and others on this forum. In fact, many if not most of those details were lies, but still, that wasn't any more right. In fact, maybe it's worse considering they have publicly libeled people in this forum with no repentance. In some cases, people's past sins were detailed as if they were current situations, and in other cases, sins were invented to make the person look as bad as possible. Now that's not right either. | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 24 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Jen, You can't compare having your sins exposed and having your address exposed. You guys are exposing Mike's sins, right? So you guys were "even" (so to speak) before the article was even written. Very poor taste and had nothing to do with the article. | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 34 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
It's hardly an issue of being 'even'. Now that would be petty. Did you miss the part where I said that the 'exposing of sins' was mostly lies? Could you share your thoughts on that? And I clearly said that I didn't agree with exposing (nearly) the address. I thought that was quite wrong. One more thing regarding everyone's location: earlier in these boards an Indy supporter more or less threatened us by saying that he knew where we all lived and that he could easily go to our neighbors about us. That could have been considered scary, wouldn't you say? Especially since that supporter has been quite ballistic throughout these threads. | ||
| cult_fighter New member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 22 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
OK No1 (can I use that-- it's shorter), I apologize. Please forgive me. I truly have made unjust assumptions about you -- which clearly colored my language towards you. Do you forgive me? Let me tell you, however, WHY I (and others) have made such assumptions: There are two indefensible facts: (1) Mike Peters is an open liar. (2) Mike and his clones are very deceptive -- willing to pretend to be someone they are not. You can dispute these FACTS if you like, but I've lived them. Mike has openly LIED about me and about my family. And he's never repented. Many of us here on this forum have experienced his lies. If you want an example of his deceptiveness, go back to the early days of this forum, when Mike posed as someone else, then posted a string of obvious lies about Jen's husband, Denny. It was revealed later that this was Mike doing the lying. Another thing for you to know: On the day before you first posted -- and at least "seemed" to be defending Mike -- I had sent an email to Chris O, one of Mike's known mouthpieces. I told Chris that I had posted the 17 questions, and invited him to respond. So then, less than 24 hours later, YOU responded to those questions. At the time, I thought that was no coincidence. But I was wrong, I apologize. OK? Whatever suspicion we all might still have of you would be removed if you'd say at least one critical thing about Mike Peters. The evidence, both in the article and on this forum, is quite overwhelming. I've invited you (and that's what I'm truly doing now -- inviting, not bullying) to take a stand on the practice of encouraging a wife to tell her children that "Daddy hates Jesus" -- when that Daddy's worst sin is rejecting the teachings of Mike Peters. Can you not at least say this is wrong? It's happened, No1 -- I know of at least 3 wives who have done this (all under Mike's "encouragement"). No1, this is asked in genuine concern: Are YOU afraid of Mike Peters? <continued> | ||
| cult_fighter New member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 23 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
<continuation> You also sound a bit defensive or offended by my use of the term "Peterite". Honestly, while I know it bugs them, it's NOT an offensive term. Think about other Christian groups -- What do you call followers of Martin Luther? LUTHERans. What do you call followers of John Calvin? CALVINists. So doesn't it follow that we can call followers of Mike Peters, PETERites? I sure think so. One other thing I've ripped into you on is "whining" -- telling you to stop with the charges of "bullying", etc. OK, I apologize for that too. Maybe you genuinely felt bullied. For that, I'm sorry. I WILL tell you that I think terms like that are used a little bit too quickly. To me, "bullying" involves PHYSICAL intimidation, not just written words. I got a little bit angry with you over this because this TRULY IS a Peterite tactic -- exaggeration of sins. Mike found out that a family member of mine had watched an R-rated movie (with no sex, no nudity, and with a profanity filter on). Mike openly told other men that I was "allowing pornography in my home". Clear exaggeration, wouldn't you say? The WORST case (I can recall) of Mike's "sin exaggerations" is in his referrence to "wife abusers". If you look at the Indy Monthly article, Mike accused his detractors of being "a psychotic and wife-abusive handful of people". Let me tell you about Mike's charge of "wife abusing" -- I have a few acquaintances whom he has said this about. Never, ever, EVER has Mike said that ANY of these men had PHYSICALLY abused their wife. Not a single hit, punch, kick, or bite -- and I've pushed (bullied?) Mike on this! I've asked him point-blank, "If ______ is SO abusive, why don't you tell his wife to leave him, for her own safety?" Mike's response: "Well, I'm NOT talking about physical abuse, I'm talking about EMOTIONAL ABUSE!" No1, let me tell you about "emotional abuse" and "verbal abuse", OK? I have a good marriage with a Godly wife. But sometimes we have arguments. EVERY time we have one of those arguments, I could charge my wife with "emotional abuse" -- or "verbal abuse", and she could charge me with the same! This is one of the most vulgar things Mike is doing -- charging wonderful Christian husbands with being "wife-abusers". Most of the time, that "abuse" is merely saying "Mike Peters is a cult leader, and your group is a cult" -- THAT is "verbal abuse" by Mike's definition. The TRUE "abuse" is when a wife openly turns a man's children against him, telling them that "Daddy hates Jesus". Don't you think? Anyways, I truly AM sorry. Hope you'll forgive me, and let's start over with this dialogue. Also, I hope you understand the emotions behind our "explosions" now. | ||
| know_won New member Username: know_won Post Number: 25 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Apology accepted. I understand about the Chris O comment. I can't really blame you for thinking I was Chris. I can assure you that I am not. I doubt that Mike is open about being a liar. haha. Maybe you mean that the thing's he's lied about are out in the open? Just out of curiosity...are there any specific examples of Mike posting under a different name? I mean...not just the posts, but the information that showed that it was him. As far as my motives being more clear if I were to say something bad about Mike...that's just silly. This isn't a gossip club. You can think what you want about me and my motives. I'm not going to bash someone just because someone else wants me too. I don't believe you when you say you know of three women that Mike has instructed to say "Daddy hates Jesus". Maybe three women who have "withheld affection"...but not three that have told their children to say that Daddy hates Jesus. That only happened with Tim S, right? As far as the "withholding affection" thing goes...it IS Biblical. I remember there being a big deal made of not doing things that weren't necessarily wrong, but that had the appearance of wrong-doing. I think Mike would have been wise to direct these wives to a female member of CII instead of telling them himself. That way all appearance of impropriety would be gone. Thanks again for posting. We Lilly folk need to stick together. ;) | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 26 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
I somehow missed your continuation. haha. Sorry about that. You say that the term "Peterite" bugs them, but then you say it's not offensive. Actually it IS offensive. You don't have to consider something offensive for it to be truly so. And I have to wonder...now that you know it gets under their skin, do you did it now just for the annoyance value? Bullying is clearly not a physical thing. This is really a debate for a different forum...but I'll address it here. Trying to get me to say things a certain way or answer questions ("or else") is intimidation. That's the key component of bullying. Again...you never bullied me (and won't), but it was clear attempt. Exaggeration is such a touchy topic because everyone sees things differently. You're saying that you slapped the "Peterite" label on me because you thought that the things you were saying weren't as bad as I said they were. The thing is, you have reason to say you weren't doing those things. What reason do I have to make those things up? I would gain nothing by that. I wouldn't know you from the next guy on the street. I'm not here to defend each and every allegation you have against Mike. I posted initially because there were two posts I disagreed with. This verbal and emotional abuse thing is something you really need to look into. Both are VERY real. And it's not just arguing either. I'm very glad that you're so foreign to the idea of it because that indicates that you've never been through it. It's not pretty. I would much rather be hit than verbally or emotionally abused. God has blessed us with the inability to remember physical pain. Sure...you can remember that something hurt, but thinking about it doesn't bring the pain back. It its very difficult to get over emotional pain...as I'm sure a lot of people here can attest to. It amazes me that with all of the testimony we have here in these forums that you still don't believe in the concept of verbal and emotional abuse. Once again I want to thank you for your reply. | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 28 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Jen: It's hardly an issue of being 'even'. Now that would be petty. -I guess i didn't make my point here very well. It's not about being even, but it seemed like you were almost justifying having his personal info out there because he puts others' personal info out there. Did you miss the part where I said that the 'exposing of sins' was mostly lies? Could you share your thoughts on that? -It's so difficult to get on this bandwagon because I have no idea if the things he's saying are true or not. You say they are lies...he would probably say they aren't lies. You can't expect me to be the judge and jury on that one. And I clearly said that I didn't agree with exposing (nearly) the address. I thought that was quite wrong. -Like I said above, it just appeared to me that when you followed that opinion up with "But if we are to be fair" comment, you seemed to be saying that it was fair to put that out there because other people had personal info exposed too. Did anyone else have directions to their house posted in a prominent magazine? I hardly call that "fair". One more thing regarding everyone's location: earlier in these boards an Indy supporter more or less threatened us by saying that he knew where we all lived and that he could easily go to our neighbors about us. That could have been considered scary, wouldn't you say? Especially since that supporter has been quite ballistic throughout these threads. -Well...did he threaten you, or did he "more or less" threaten you? When it comes to safety, you can't take chances, so I'm not even 100% sure it matters. It you felt threatened, obviously that's not good. -I've found a disturbing pattern here. When I bring up things that have been done against me or CII or Mike Peters, someone brings up something that CII or Mike, or someone has done to them. Do the actions equal out in your mind? Does the fact that this Indy supporter threatened people "make-up" for a reporter describing in detail how to get to Mike's house? If not, please explain why you brought this up. | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 36 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Funny, I've seen the same pattern from you. Anytime anyone speaks of wrongs done by Mike, you defend him and bring up wrongs done to him. know_won, do you give a rip about the spiritually and emotionally abused people that have spoken out on these threads? Do you give a rip about the needless divorces, or the Christian family members who can't even see their children or grandchildren because they have not embraced the teachings of CII? These threads would not exist if everything was hunky dory in Indy. Or do you only care that Mike's section of town was mentioned? Because I care about that, I felt it was wrong, but I didn't do it and can't change it. What do you want from me regarding that? What will make you happy? Ok, forgive my apparently unacceptable placement of my comment about fairness. But do you think it is fair for a man to post that my husband could probably be found with a prostitute any given night? Because I call that damaging libel and it hurt me deeply. Does anyone's pain mean anything to you besides Mike Peters' pain? | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 31 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Can you please give examples of me justifying Mike's actions by bring up someone else's? What would make you think I don't care? I never accused you of printing where Mike lives. I never asked you to fix it. I simply said it was wrong. You've said it to, but you seemed to defend it at the same time. If you're saying you didn't mean to do that...OK. I don't know if it was fair or not because I don't know your husband. It could be 100% true or 100% false. I have no idea. | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 32 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
I need to change what I said... Whether what Mike said was 100% true or 100% false, he shouldn't have posted it in these forums. Period. | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 38 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
I didn't say you justified his actions. I said you defend him and then bring up wrongs done to him. There's one example of twisting my words. And the implication of you stating it that way is to say that I am justifying wrongs done to him by stating wrongs he's done to others. Wrong. What makes me question is your apparent lack of concern for the witness of the abused in this forum and your defense of Mike. Not to mention splitting hairs about whether or not Chris actually said 'go to hell' while ignoring what I told you he actually said. I did not defend the printing of the location of Mike's neighborhood. I appreciate your follow up comment that Mike should not have posted that, but there's also the matter that I don't understand why he assumed such an evil about my husband. Doesn't love suffer long, and isn't it kind? Doesn't it look for the good, and hope for the best? NOT IN INDY. | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 34 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Jen, You said at the end of your first paragraph that my implication was that you are "justifying wrongs done to him by stating wrongs he's done to others." That is exactly what I meant. You stated that you saw the same pattern in me. But then you said, "I didn't say you justified his actions." I was speaking about a pattern of justifying. You said that I did it(justified) also, but then you said I didn't justify. Please clarify. Did I justify Mike's actions by stating actions taken against him? If not, what pattern did you "also" see in my posts? | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 40 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
I have no idea what your intentions or motives are in anything you post. What are you looking for here? You did not use the word justify, so was I supposed to assume that's what you meant? I told you on the other thread, I don't care for psychological games or the twisting of words. | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 37 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Jen, You said: "And the implication of you stating it that way is to say that I am justifying wrongs done to him by stating wrongs he's done to others." And you're right. That's exactly what I was saying. But even though I didn't use those exact words, you knew what I was getting at. So you already assumed that I was talking about justification. You said so yourself. Using buzz words like "psychological games" and "twisting of words" doesn't make either of them accurate. | ||
| cult_fighter New member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 25 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Know_one: You missed where I said I DO believe in "emotional abuse" and "verbal abuse"! Did you see where I said that my wife verbally and emotionally abuses me EVERY time we have an argument, and I do the same to her? THAT is emotional abuse! And 99% of the time, it's NO BIG DEAL! Ask God's and the abusee's forgiveness and move on! When my wife "emotionally abuses" me, I don't go reporting it to my pastor, for goodness sake! The REAL abuse is in USING this charge of "emotional abuse" to control and punish men who won't submit to Mike Peters and his teachings. And I didn't say "not submit to the Bible". Mike Peters teachings and the Bible's teachings are very RARELY the same thing, so PLEASE stop mixing them up!! The ONLY time "emotional abuse" is a serious concern is when we're talking about a superior-to-inferior relationship, such as parent-to-child, teacher-to-child, pastor-to-parishoner, etc. But not equal relationships, such as husband-to-wife. That kind of "emotional abuse" is typical marital relationships that need to be dealt with WITHIN the marriage -- not taken out for Mike to hear about them! By the way, in your 5 years in the group, did you ever hear Mike pull out his "Not Without My Daughter" hogwash? Every "emotionally-abused" wife claims her husband is like the Iranian wife-beater in that Sally Field movie. It's a pattern, a pattern given to them by Mike. Finally, you're just going to have to choose -- believe me or believe Mike. I really DO know of 3 men whose wives were told (BY MIKE) to tell their children that "Daddy hates Jesus". If you don't believe me, then you're CHOOSING to believe in Mike. Know_one, I've seen the SECRET EMAILS, from Mike TO ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE, where he told this wife to tell her children about their father's "evilness" -- I've seen these emails! But no, I'm NOT going to say who this man (or the other one) is. I don't have his permission to do so. So choose -- believe me or believe Mike. I will confirm, however, that Tim Sz is one of the 3. Was is justified for Mrs. Sz to tell her children (at Mike's prodding) that their Daddy "hates Jesus"?? Was that justified? And yes, by "open liar", I meant that Mike's lies are out in the open. They are indisputable. 173/01? | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
I'm sure you did mean justification and obviously I did pick up on that. What you're not getting here is that I DID NOT mean justification. My point of you constantly taking everything said about wrongs Peters has done and turning it into wrongs done to Peters I see as a diversionary tactic. That's why I said that I wasn't saying you were justifying Peters actions. Don't take your meaning and assume that's my meaning as well. I have no more time for these games. I have to get some sleep for much work tomorrow. | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 39 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Your post just underlines the fact that you don't REALLY know what emotional abuse is. And if you emotionally abuse your wife every time you argue and thing it's OK, you have a serious problem. I'm not saying you're an abuser...I'm saying that you don't know what emotional abuse truly is. I don't think that you abuse your wife at all...or she you. Trust me...you would know emotional abuse if you saw it, and you would not think it was "no big deal". Be glad that you and you wife have that great of a relationship. You apparently know more about this than I do...you're saying that you're 100% sure that Mike Peters told wives to withhold affection their husbands just because they didn't agree with Mike. Not because they didn't agree with the Bible...but because they didn't agree with Mike. And the wives were OK with this? Why is it that the wives were blinded but the men could see? Sounds weird to me. I'm not saying it's not true. Just weird. Are there examples of a man withholding affection from a woman because Mike said so? As far as choosing you or choosing Mike...I think you're simplifying things here. Those aren't the only two choices. I don't know what happened because I wasn't there. Neither were you. I didn't believe there were three men because I only read about one on the forums. You say two more told you it happened to them too...I have no reason to not believe you. I wasn't there either. Did you ever come up with any examples of how Mike came in, posing as someone else. And then also the subsequent posts where he told you it was him? I was also hoping to see some posts where he said one thing, and then said another. I really want to see the lies. I don't even know where 173 is. Is it in Greenfield? | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
Know-Won, I have a question. On 8-8 at 10:13, one of the things you mentioned was Jesus said we'd have to leave everything and pick up our cross. "even family"-if they don't follow too. That is true, if they don't follow Jesus. God also says "Honor your father and mother which is the first commandment with promise". Ep 6:2 Now, if your parents are Christians, but what mike teaches you about your family is that they aren't following Jesus and you need to shun them, what do you do? | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 5 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
Willie_Tasby, I am so sorry if you already answered this, but can you tell me anything about the group in Charlotte that your family is involved in?? Is it a small group?? Several families? Location in the city? Thanks! | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 6 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
you know, mike has gray hair. Do you think the author of the magazine article encountered him? I just saw on a video that mike's hair is now gray. just a thought... | ||
| scannyd New member Username: scannyd Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 65.60.228.88 |
Hello Know_won, My name is Danielle and I wanted to answer several of your doubts about the "withholding affection" doctrine of Mike Peters. First off, I personally have known and unfortunately still know of 2 families that the children have been told their fathers are evil. The children are instructed to cover their ears when the father's pray or read the bible out loud to them. One family has been set free but another has not. Second I have personally experienced a man "withholding affection" from his wife. This will look somewhat different from a wife doing the same to a husband but let me tell you it is no less painful. During that period in my marriage was the worst time in my life. After I submitted to the Indy teachings I was welcomed back into my marriage and the group. I realize know that I was a christian before that group got hold of me and I wish I wouldn't have listened to them. I am sooo grateful though that we are free from them and can love each other and have a good marriage now. My full testimony is on indianapoliscult.com, look under Tim and Danielle. Please prayerfully consider your words here on this forum as well as everyone else. It can so easily be taken one way or another that we do not mean. Thanks Danielle | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
thank you Danielle, you are right that we need to consider what is said. There are so many open wounds yet and everyone deals with pain and sorrow and wounds differently. We can still pray for each other in the middle of it. I am angry at the detestation that has occurred because of the teachings of mike peters. I am finding more and more people to pray for every day. | ||
| willie_tasby New member Username: willie_tasby Post Number: 10 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 76.112.28.247 |
Yesterday Jen posted the following: "I have a question. On 8-8 at 10:13, one of the things you mentioned was Jesus said we'd have to leave everything and pick up our cross. "even family"-if they don't follow too. That is true, if they don't follow Jesus. God also says "Honor your father and mother which is the first commandment with promise". Ep 6:2 Now, if your parents are Christians, but what mike teaches you about your family is that they aren't following Jesus and you need to shun them, what do you do"? I agree with this statement wholeheartedly! This is the crux of the matter. I would take it a step further and say that even those who are not Christian should NOT be shunned or ignored. By doing so, you give up on possibly sharing the joy of Christ with them at a later time. I don't recall Jesus giving up on non-believers. He often traveled among the non-believers offering his peace and love. Know Won has constantly thrown up diversions. I don't see the value in his/her posts. It's time to stay focussed on the problem at hand. Mike Peters' group is a cult. We would like to free our loved ones from this harmful cult. To debate semantics should be a topic for some other forum. Regards, "Willie" | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 41 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Lauramarie, I think the assumption with most people here is that Mike preaches things that aren't correct. I don't know that for sure, so I can't answer the hypotheticals. Do I agree with every word that Mike Peters has ever said? No. But to just ask me a blanket question with built-in accusataions just isn't fair. | ||
| joythruchrist Junior Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 48 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Willie, actually lauramarie posted that, but I agree with the question and I agree with what you said. The focus is off on these boards and should get back on track. I also do not view lauramarie's question as a blanket statement with built in accusations. I thought it was a specific question that should be answered. Not to mention, she has specific experience with the subject at hand and should know whereof she speaks. | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
know_one, your response has me baffled. Do you agree with everything mike has ever said? you say "no"? what do you know about what mike says unless you've heard him or listened to the tapes or watched the videos or read the material or talked to him face to face. with that said, you also said you couldn't answer me because you don't know for sure if what mike teaches is correct. Is it that you have trouble discerning what he says? I am sure we can find some people that can help you dissect the things he preaches and show you the errors. If that is what you want. I suppose you could go directly to mike and ask him, but if you can't decide yet what he says is right or wrong, I would fear you would walk away totally convinced he was right. If you can't tell by now (since you apparently don't believe everything he says, so you KNOW what he says) you really should seek assistance in understanding from someone other than mike. Again, I am sure there are people here that could help you see the errors. Just a thought. If I got what you said totally wrong, I apologize. It would not be the first time I misunderstood someone. | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 45 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Lauramarie said: "your response has me baffled. Do you agree with everything mike has ever said? you say "no"? what do you know about what mike says unless you've heard him or listened to the tapes or watched the videos or read the material or talked to him face to face." -I've spent a lot of time around him. I didn't see all of the things that people are listing on here. It doesn't mean that they aren't true. It means I didn't see them. Someone will probably say I was "blinded" or something similar. No...I just flat out didn't see some of the things he's being accused of. Nothing more, nothing less. "with that said, you also said you couldn't answer me because you don't know for sure if what mike teaches is correct. Is it that you have trouble discerning what he says? I am sure we can find some people that can help you dissect the things he preaches and show you the errors. If that is what you want." -If it's what I want? You're the one asking the question. It sounds like you're the one looking for answers. Or just trying to test me. "I suppose you could go directly to mike and ask him, but if you can't decide yet what he says is right or wrong, I would fear you would walk away totally convinced he was right." -That is an unjustified fear since you really don't know anything about me. "If you can't tell by now (since you apparently don't believe everything he says, so you KNOW what he says) you really should seek assistance in understanding from someone other than mike. Again, I am sure there are people here that could help you see the errors. Just a thought." -If you're saying I should seek assistance from people on this board...that's OK. I'll read what people have to say, but you guys are CLEARLY biased. I'm not saying you shouldn't be or don't have a right to be. All I'm saying is that I don't want my opinion colored by someone else's anger. "If I got what you said totally wrong, I apologize. It would not be the first time I misunderstood someone." -I'm not sure if you did or not...haha. But hopefully these responses have cleared anything up. | ||
| know_won Junior Member Username: know_won Post Number: 46 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Jen said: "I also do not view lauramarie's question as a blanket statement with built in accusations." -It's a blank question about families shunning families. It's not a specific case...it's just a general, blanket question. The built-in accusation is the assumption that Mike has done the things outlined in the question. I realize that to some if you, this is a fact-based question. But remember, not everyone has seen/read the things you have. As this point, it's an accusation. "I thought it was a specific question that should be answered. Not to mention, she has specific experience with the subject at hand and should know whereof she speaks." -And I don't have specific knowledge? I was never asked to stop having a relationship with my family that went to a "traditional church". I was never told to not associate with the people from that church. So with me, none of that happened. I'm just now learning of some of the things you guys say are going on. Believe me...it's a lot of information to try to process while simultaneously trying to defend my posts and my opinions because I didn't have all of the same experiences that other people did. | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 13 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
Know_won, thank you for your response. Again, I hope I didn't say anything that you took offense to. I was confused, but I do see the picture much clearer now. I had not realized you had spent so much time with Mike. Years ago, when I first read Meetings and some of the brochures, I was so SOLD on Indy that I actually had considered that if anything had happened to my husband, I was taking my kids and moving to Indy. It was Christian Eutopia! Just what every Christian I know wants!! It looked so good on the outside, and now I see the pain my family has been through. The grandchildren never even seen. (by CHRISTIAN grandparents) The "robot" like answers to any question. The accusations that the real Jesus lives in Indy apparently and my Jesus is a "different" one. The list is much longer, but I don't see the point. The pain is real. The cult characteristics are more than evident (on the OUTSIDE) you don't see them inside. You can't be alone anyway because you might start to critically think and see it for what it is! For us that don't "get it". What a lie! We ARE the ones that "get it", but if I told you over and over that we are the only ones that "get it", then we will believe it. We may even make up what we "get" because we have been told so many times that we have the truth. Deliverance from this mental, emotional and spiritual bondage is hard. People have to deal with things there own way. To admit to yourself you've been duped for 4 or 10 or 20 years is HARD! Family members you used to LOVE have died while you were there. Cousins, nephews, aunts, parents...all have aged and you missed it because of a LIE! But most of all, to find that they all love the SAME Jesus as you and you believed the lie! God is the only who can restore what the locust have stolen. I pray for Mike and especially his precious wife! I do. God has laid her on my heart more than once and I grieve. All that to say I now see more of the picture than I did before....and said in love, not condemnation or criticism. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 52 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
So does this mean you are defensive? You said I was as if it was a bad thing when I defended some of my remarks to you. BTW, I believe that defending your remarks and being labeled 'defensive' can really be two different things. | ||
| munchcat New member Username: munchcat Post Number: 1 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.133.147.103 |
It appears that know_won is attempting to distract the focus of this forum. It also seems like know_won may not understand what it's like to lose a family member to this cult.... to have a loved one completely shun you and act like you don't exist -- and that is in NO WAY displaying the Love of Christ. Please do not defend mike peters on this forum.... he has brainwashed my brother, stolen his Joy, and hurt sooo many others in the process! The people on this forum are here to encourage one another, give hope and support, and shed light on this very manipulative and dangerous group that mike peters' has created. | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 14 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
munchcat, stealing joy! I REMEMBER what my family members were like (even though they have been in this snare 15 years) They loved life and had joy. Know-won may not realize how when people there get together, they all start talking the same. The emotion is gone and they all sound like robots. The little "hummmm" after you say something that you HOPE is acceptable to them. Does Know-won remember having his/her own personality?? I know the few times I was there, I talked like them. My manner of speech and the words I chose to speak all come forth, almost without effort, to subconsciously appease these people. It's because everyone does it and you fall right in to it. Then whatever they tell you about Kingdom Life, you WANT for yourself. But it's not your choice anymore, it's what's acceptable to the "group" who all seek what's acceptable to mike and his top people. I've done Molly's laundry! It's insidious, but the reason is it sounds so good! It IS what all Christians I know want (on the outside). But nobody I know out here wants every step they take, every word they speak, the groceries they buy, how they cut their grass (I'm assuming this one since when I visited, they were all living in apartments) Apartments were the "better way" so they could all be part of each other's lives. You know, one of the "accusations" against my family member before he became a part of the group was how he spent time in the yard, cutting grass, weed eating, grooming bushes. I remember they called it worshiping the lawn!! Now that mike moved to a house, I guess he had to decide it was OK now to do so. My question, do these people now somehow cut their grass without worshiping the lawn. I think there is time spent on a lawn that should be spent listening to one of mikes tapes or somehow with other people doing the Indy church stuff. I guess if you do it in a group, maybe that isn't worshiping the lawn. Or do you have to be very conscious NOT to get some enjoyment or satisfaction while cutting your grass? twisted, to fit whatever mike says is acceptable! ridiculous and controlling. Sorry for that rabbit trail. Just more things I think about. | ||
| cult_fighter Junior Member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 26 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Sorry, Know_One, but it is YOU who doesn't understand what "abuse" is. Here's a dictionary definition: a·buse (-byz) tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es 1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege. 2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use. 3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest. 4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile. 5. Obsolete To deceive or trick. Obviously, definitions #1 and #5 don't apply, they are of a different meaning. But overall, look at definitions #2 and #4. Obviously, I've already pointed out that my wife and I -- who have a GREAT marriage -- have done #4 to each other. We've used contemptuous and insulting words on each other. Have you and your spouse NEVER done this?? Amazing! Also, look at definition #2 -- every time we have a little argument, one or both of us gets "hurt" or "injured" by those "abusive" words. Has your spouse NEVER "hurt" or "injured" you with his/her words? I'm guessing that, even if you don't like admitting it -- both you and your spouse have "abused" each other, that is "verbal abuse" and "emotional abuse" -- but NOT "physical abuse". Of course, the "abuse" between you and your spouse is NOT anything to worry about, as long as the two of you have sought each other's (and God's) forgiveness. My point: The above is an example of how Mike exaggerates -- he finds similar cases where a rebellious Peterite husband has "abused" (usually no more seriously than you or I have done) his Peterite wife. Mike then tells the reporter that his critics are "wife-abusers". Are you now convinced that Mike's charges are silly? Don't get me wrong -- I take REAL "abuse" very seriously. Physical and sexual abuse are crimes! This is why I urged Mike to tell his female follower to LEAVE her husband, if there was some REAL abuse -- which Mike then admitted there wasn't. | ||
| cult_fighter Junior Member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Know_Won: You should like this! I just found an internet definition of the specific term, "emotional abuse": Emotional abuse refers to a long-term situation in which one person uses his or her power or influence to adversely affect the mental well-being of another. Emotional abuse can appear in a variety of forms, including rejection, degradation, isolation, corruption, exploitation, and invoking terror. Notice the words "rejection" and "isolation"! Sounds like the REAL emotional abusers are the wives -- under Mike's close direction. It's also clear that the husbands CANNOT be the "emotional abusers" because the definition says they have would have to have "power" over their wives. These wives are told that their husbands are pagans, Muslims, and Jesus-haters -- thus the husbands have zero "power". I repeat: What is called "emotional abuse" by Mike and his allies is when a Christian husband says to his wife: "Honey, your church is a cult, and that man Mike you respect so much -- he's an evil cult leader! If you really want to call yourself a biblical wife, you will submit to my judgment and leave this cult, just as I have done." If a husband says such a thing -- and especially if he says it with an elevated voice, oh my! --- that's "emotional abuse"!!!!!! (shudder, shudder) | ||
| munchcat New member Username: munchcat Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.133.147.103 |
I am new to this forum as well as all of the other Indy-related forums on FACTnet, so when I was going through some of the old posts on another thread... I cannot even BEGIN to tell you how absolutely STUNNED I was to read what chrisO had written (with his seemingly eerie and irate undertone) to everyone else as he attempted to defend the infamous cult leader, mike peters. ______________________________________________ Thread name: “Indianapolis Contradictions” December 14, 2006 chrisO writes (under his name “wirklichmir”): "The only reason the vile, perverted person who wrote all those twisted half-truths on Mike needs to remain "anonymous" is because he or she is lying through their teeth and they KNOW it. I've never in all my life seen as much cowardice and people who stoop into hell as you all do to come up with the things you write about. How DARE any of you even INSINUTATE that you are followers of Jesus or in any way righteous at ALL (you all have no comprehension of that word) when you have no backbone or spine to state your testimony out front, in the open, and with NAMES, as **GOD DEMANDS**???!!! It's because you all are lying through your teeth and I might add that you don't have to go far for your sick, twisted "material" and perspectives. You all are entirely guilty of actual perversions and gross sin and have no purity in your hearts at all that you would be able to see situations you've described in ANY way as they actually were and are. This is false testimony through and through (as has been going on for months here and on your other demonic sites.) "To the pure all things are PURE," but to the satanically perverted and enraged and angry... You become what every person who has ever denied Jesus WITH THEIR LIVES has become (regardless of what you all "claim" -- which is just as erroneous as the lies you fabircate about others.)" (chrisO goes on to say...) "....Meanwhile, the rap sheet on your lives of fornication, sensual and sexual perversions, child-endangerment, wife abuse, wife stealing, dealings with lesbians, perverted and sensual movie watching and reality game playing is WELL DOCUMENTED throughout the internet EVEN NOW, much less the countless witnesses to your perversions and sins, including some in your number with actual police records in several cities (public record!)." ______________________________________________ I SHUDDERED when I read this from chrisO... the FIRST word that came to my mind was “ACCUSER”. Practically everything this man in bondage wrote was an accusation against everyone and anyone who attempted to speak out to expose the cultic ways of mike peters’ group and bring about freedom to trapped family members. This verse came to mind from Revelation 12:10 (KJV): And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. Also, I feel SOOOO much judgment from this person and others in the Indy cult. Do they remember that Jesus says in Matthew 7:1-4: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?” | ||
| munchcat New member Username: munchcat Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.133.147.103 |
chrisO accuses people of this forum of not being followers of Jesus and who gave chrisO insight into peoples’ hearts????? He acts like he’s keeping tabs on people, when isn’t that what Pharisees were KNOWN FOR? I believe Jesus in the judger of hearts and only He has that authority...NOT mike peters or any of his mouthpieces! Lastly, I had to laugh when I read chrisO’s obvious anger at someone’s “dealings with lesbians”... again, I am reminded of the Pharisees here when Jesus went to visit Matthew (the tax collector) and eat with those shunned by society. (Mat 9:9-13) The Pharisees were livid at this action of Jesus. Jesus came to reach out to ALL, so why does chrisO have a problem with someone who speaks to a lesbian and possibly reaches out to her with the LOVE of Christ? I will be continuing to pray for all of those trapped in mike peters’ web of deception. It saddens me for I know that my currently trapped brother used to have a real zest for life and now that joy is nowhere to be found. I pray that an end to peters’ reign over the hearts and minds of all the victims comes very soon! | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 15 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
Amen! The scriptures will free people some day, but they are also trained like Jehovah's Witnesses to have a "packaged" response to every verse you offer them. It is only the Holy Spirit that can go in and crack open their hearts to the truth. Keep praying since God has given us the opportunity to do so! I believe there will be deliverance and the walls will come crashing down. Who will be there to pick up the pieces? I think I have a clue. As bad as the internet can be (the CII AllatHisfeet site even tells people to stay off, stay away from "hours" spent not in kingdom time~~put the fear in people to look) it has brought many together in one accord. It also helps me see the urgency of praying for these people. | ||
| danrepent New member Username: danrepent Post Number: 18 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 65.60.228.88 |
Does this all seems like craziness? I agree with munchcat, know_won is dodging the truth and picks on a few people in this forum. If he were to read and answer all the posts that are to him, he would have a better understanding. I don’t think know_won wants to know the truth about CII. Or maybe he does, but he is brainwashed. One thing is, if he keeps nit picking, he will never see the reality. Just a reminder to some of you. You can’t change people who don’t want to be changed. At this point in time, kno_won is clogging up the forum with his tricky logic. I personally don’t see a benefit in engaging in this. Whoever can read ChrisO’s posts without flinching, must be hardened and deceived. He needs prayer. | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 54 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Dan, I've been reading the posts and will respond when I get done. As you can see, there are a LOT of post that you want me to reply to. Be patient, please. As far as people reading Chris's posts and not flinching...first of all, how can you gauge someone's reaction to a post when they read it? That's silly. And which one of Chris's post did you want me to respond to? | ||
| danrepent New member Username: danrepent Post Number: 19 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 65.60.228.88 |
There is the nit picking again. How about reading the one munchcat quoted above? danrepent <-- Don't shorten it please... | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 16 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
know_won, what is it you are actually seeking? Can you briefly describe your intentions here? | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 54 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
*sigh* I've been asking that one question for awhile now... | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 17 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
you have, haven't you?? I'm laughing right now at the silly games!! I got caught up in it! How many other ways can we ask THE SAME THING!!?? it's good to laugh! It builds endorphines and they make you feel good. God put them there, so I enjoy them!! | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 55 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
 | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 55 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
D_R, Where is the nit picking again. You said "there" but I don't know "where" you mean. Please explain. | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 56 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
Jen and Lauramarie, I've actually answered that question a few times. I originally posted on here because there some things that I thought were unfair. There were two threads...one starting with a post condemning Mike for having 5 websites and that a Google result pointed to CII, and the other containing 17 question...some valid, others not. I hope this answers the question. (Message edited by know_won on August 13, 2007) | ||
| danrepent New member Username: danrepent Post Number: 20 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 65.60.228.88 |
Below is nit picking, because I used a figure of speach. You took it literally. Kno_Won said: "As far as people reading Chris's posts and not flinching...first of all, how can you gauge someone's reaction to a post when they read it? That's silly." By the way, did you read it? | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 56 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Actually, the post "condemning Mike for having 5 websites" was really only (correction: largely) pointing out that they have multiple sites, but claim not to recruit. And there has been multiple testimony on these boards to the fact that they claim not to recruit, but indeed they do recruit in many different ways. It was only posted to point to the duplicity. Which has been a recurring theme. (Message edited by joythruchrist on August 13, 2007) | ||
| threeseas New member Username: threeseas Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 70.239.89.100 |
i have been following this for a few days and cant believe how ridiculous this is getting to be. A couple of months ago I mentioned my close friend ( well, pre-peterized) had been booted from Indy awhile back. After 8 years of no-contact, we met recently for several hours. Even though he was booted from the cult a couple of years ago...he still seemed to be in a haze. Oddly, we met after he was 'allowed' to visit his wife and kids for 2 hours in Indy....( after 2 years of contact not being allowed). It was horrific to hear how manipulative this group of people ( not just Mike) can be. Though they profess they are all about relationships and not rules ( tradition etc)...they are actually the opposite. All rules, no grace-filled relationships. No forgiveness. No encouragement. Purely robotic...reminds me of The Stepford Wives ( lets create a little utopia of "christian perfection") I can only testify as to what i know. I have seen a man and family destroyed by a so-called Christian community. He had been warned by someone in Indy that day we met about "article"....so I had already purchased an extra copy and gave it to him to read. I think he was stunned, his eyes were opened somewhat and in agreement with at least the first couple of pages. As with anyone leaving a cult, studies tell us that it takes them time to re-orient to the truth...typically years. They especially arent ready to get involved in any church or religious community due to the pain and confusion Lets continue to pray for and come alongside those who are fortunate and brave enough to get out. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 57 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
threeseas, thank you. We will keep your friend and his family in prayer. I am so hopeful that God will work healing in these situations and relationships. How I hope it won't always have to take years... | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 57 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 68.58.67.7 |
D_R, I guess I don't understand. You used the word, "flinch" and I use a broader term, "reaction". Typically, nit-picking involved focusing in...not broadening out. Perhaps part of this is because you didn't really specify who you were talking about when you mentioned people "not flinching". Maybe you weren't talking to or about me. If not, forget I even responded, because I shouldn't have. If you were talking to/about me, then my question remains. Now that I think about it...I have to assume you weren't talking about me because you asked in your last post if I read what Chris wrote. Obviously I would have had to read the post to not flinch. Since you don't know if I read the post, I'm going to have to retract that part of my response since you clearly couldn't have been talking to me. | ||
| munchcat New member Username: munchcat Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.133.147.103 |
I agree with you, Jen, I am so hopeful that God will open the eyes of many in the cult and bring about freedom & healing in the near future!! My brother has been gone now for 7 years and it hasn't been until very very recent that my family has gotten in touch with other families that have loved ones allied with my brother's satelitte group of the CII who are also being deceived by peters' manipulative ways! 7 YEARS and we are finally breaking through... even if it's just baby steps right now!! It's given me so much hope! | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 58 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
We are definitely praying for you and yours, too, munchcat. There's such a deep heaviness in my heart when I hear these stories that is only eased by serious prayer for the deceived and their rejected families. Only God can take care of this situation. BTW, I really like your moniker. | ||
| baxter Member Username: baxter Post Number: 54 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 128.241.108.212 |
know_won, Everytime someone says one thing, the next thing you do is critique. You aren't "discussing" and you seem to be the only one who can't see that. Are you the only one who didn't know danrepent was talking about you when he was discussing "flinching". Hey, everyone out there that knew what danrepent meant, say so. And some times when someone says did you "read" it, it CAN mean did your "listen" to what it said? You just want to make everything black and white. Well everything isn't black and white. And much things experienced in Indy was not black and white. It was experiencial, effectual, subtle, that's JUST the way it is. And not everything happened in a day or two it happened over time and not everything that happened is easy to explain because of the nature of it (mental manipulation, brainwashing, etc.) Now, I expect that you will critique what is WRONG with what I just said. But ya know what, it doesn't matter to me cause I don't expect anything less from you. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 59 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Well, seemed to me that he was referring specifically to know_won, but at the same time making a general statement that would apply to anyone who seemed unmoved by the scary zealotry in ChrisO's posts. Know_won, what do you think of ChrisO's attitude? He is clearly an outspoken follower of the Indy way, even though he was asked to leave twice, and is not there now. Did you write that comment on my blog I asked you about earlier? You said if we had a question, just ask you. But will you answer? Just asking. | ||
| baxter Member Username: baxter Post Number: 55 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 128.241.108.212 |
Now I wonder why Jen would like the name "munchCAT"? hmmmm? Munchcat, that's a very encouraging post. Even just a little "break through" can go a long way. I know the Lord has to feel our pain and losses for He cares for us. Threeseas, I just want to cry and lament over the devastation that Mike Peters has brought on so many. His mindcontrol tactics have such a tenatious hold on the psyche of those involved. I'm so sorry for your friends loss of his family. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 60 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Meow? | ||
| munchcat New member Username: munchcat Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.133.147.103 |
Thanks, Jen, I like your moniker a lot too; it speaks volumes! Clearly, ChrisO's vicious and overly zealous accusation of a post is a portrayal of what the CII has pounded into the heads and hearts of our trapped loved ones. It truly is robotic and it shows just how deceived one can get when a person has been immersed in such a programmed lifestyle for a length of time. By exposing the accusatory and extreme nature of the Indy cult, we can hopefully gain awareness and come closer to helping our loved ones realize the freedom and joy they have been deprived of for all this time! In the end, God is in control and He is the one doing a work on their hearts. They have to be willing to examine their lifestyle and environment and allow God to show them the truth! | ||
| munchcat New member Username: munchcat Post Number: 6 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 67.133.147.103 |
I like "joythruchrist" ... and we want our loved ones to know that it's not "joythrumike"! | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 61 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Amen, munchcat! I chose that name years ago after a fruitless search for happiness, ordering my own life to try to obtain it. It wasn't until I learned the difference between happiness and joy, and that joy only comes through Christ and is squelched by man made rules and regulations, that I began to experience joy. I do pray for the freedom and grace and resulting joy that only comes through Christ for all of your loved ones that are bound by this terrible legalism. | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 18 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
threeseas, thank you for sharing this! Did your friend seek you out or have you been trying to talk with them for all this time? I'm just wondering how you two were able to meet after 8 years. I am distraught about some of the stories. We need to pray for those brave enough to leave, but for their families as a whole. I've heard more than once now about families leaving, but the wife (in these cases) could not leave CII emotionally and never made it "on the outside". Never were able to snap out of it and try to pick up the pieces. THAT to me is really scary! Our family has been there 15 years now. We're still praying for their deliverance and their children, who have never known anything else. | ||
| threeseas New member Username: threeseas Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 68.251.252.23 |
Just a couple months after he went into he did visit with me when I was ill...but only with 2 'brothers' supervising the visit at our house. Must have still been a potential convert at the time.However, for the next several years nothing. Even when our kids sent mail to their kids. As if they did not exist. However, we still tried. However, after being out for a couple of years he contacted us. We had no idea he was even out. Sadly, the wife is VERY close to Peters. Just like many of the stories told throughout Factnet. He did say once booted, he had absolutely nowhere to go...because he had severed ALL relationships outside of CII. So, let this be an encouragement to not give up. Try anything to keep a connection, you never know when they will respond. | ||
| graceisenough New member Username: graceisenough Post Number: 17 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 71.99.62.86 |
I agree! Keep a connection! I had my mom, my dad, my cousin, and my husband who did not give up on me no matter how much I judged and condemned them. When they spoke to me after I got out of the group, they spoke about how I argued and condemned them to the point of confusion. There is also a "gift" for great trickery with words. I always made other christians who weren't a part of the group feel that they had to defend their relationship with Jesus. Although I wasn't purposing to do that, it was the condition I was in from all the time spent with the tapes, emails, and books. Not to mention the isolation. Thank God those relationships are healed by His power. He has been very merciful with me. I am so glad to hear that there is good news from threeseas and munchcat. I am equally sad to hear about this man's monitored visits with his estranged family. At one point, I also had my husband visiting me and our children in restuarants with other people overseeing. He said it was the saddest and most humiliating feeling ever. Please don't anyone give up hope. No matter what it looks like. We are free and my marriage is restored and stronger than ever. GOD IS BIGGER THAN ALL THIS!!! | ||
| lauramarie New member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 21 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
thank you for the encouragement! I needed that! I hadn't thought about how severing all ties with everything would leave you that vulnerable. You wouldn't know where to go or what to do, because your whole life was there. I guess I just figured you would at least contact your (real) family! | ||
| baxter Member Username: baxter Post Number: 59 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.67.151.201 |
Here is another link that I thought was interesting. Whoever took the time to do this, thanks. http://cultrantings.blogspot.com/ | ||
| cult_fighter Junior Member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 28 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Know_won: PLEASE take notice! We, Mike's critics, are almost always quick to apologize when we know we've done wrong. I've done it, Baxter's done it, and now Lisa. As you always want to take his side, please contrast this with the example of Mike. Have you EVER heard him apologize? Nooooo! He's the holy prophet of God! With me, Mike was caught in a clear, open lie. In an email to a whole bunch of men, he accused me of "reviewing and approving pornographic movies". He said this based on an Amazon.com review of an R-rated movie, made by a family member of mine who used MY account. So, yes, my name was on the review, but IN that same review, he said "I am a 17-year-old" -- which Mike KNOWS does not fit me. So our dear Mike was caught in a DOUBLE lie! He knew it wasn't me making that review, and he also knew the movie was not pornographic. When I confronted Mike on this, saying I would forgive him if he'd apologize, Mike's response was to change the subject. "The real issue", according to Mike, is that I "allow" porn in my home. So he refused to apologize for his lies and compounded one of them. Know_one, are you still out there, refusing to admit that Mike is a pathetic liar?? | ||
| baxter Member Username: baxter Post Number: 61 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 128.241.47.196 |
Actually, Laura, willie, and Jen also offered apologies. But that's beside the point I want to make. I just wanted to say that know_won did say this is all new to him/her and "I'm just now learning of some of the things you guys say are going on. Believe me...it's a lot of information to try to process while simultaneously trying to defend my posts and my opinions because I didn't have all of the same experiences that other people did." So I don't think, cf, that it's fair to say that he's "refusing" to admit" anything. So I think know_won needs to have time to do his own processing. He/she already admitted some specific things weren't their experience. | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 69 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
C_F, Obviously you haven't been reading the recent messages or you wouldn't post something like this to stir the pot. Or perhaps you just like to argue? Talk about pathetic... | ||
| cult_fighter Junior Member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 29 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Know_one, Maybe I have missed something. If so, I apologize (again). Have you ever admitted that Mike is a major abuser of the truth? If yes, when? I've missed it. Why, by the way, is it "stirring the pot" or "just wanting to argue" to document the way that Mike lied about me and about my family? I just thought you'd want more details. One more thing to respond to: You chastised me for my use of the term "Peterites", saying I'm wrong to use it when I know it annoys them. I NEVER said I use the term to purposely annoy them. I did, however, say I don't care if it annoys them -- they're cultists. I use the term for brevity's sake -- it's a LOT shorter than "followers of Mike Peters". They, I suppose, would prefer "followers of Jesus" -- but that, clearly, is inaccurate. They should follow the path of their cultic brethren, the Mormons. For decades, they found that term "Mormon" offensive and refused to accept it. They preferred "Church of Latter Day Saints". Very few outsiders would use that term, simply because it's too long (and it's also inaccurate). But now, the Mormons have happily accepted the name they for so long hated. Why can't the Peterites do the same? What's so offensive about it? Followers of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley don't reject their names -- Lutherans, Calvinists, and Wesleyans. I would think that Mike would LIKE his group to be named after him. Why not? He certainly is NOT known for humility! | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 70 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
C_F, Who are you to try and bully people into admitting things that you want them too??? And I think you're smart enough to know what "stirring the pot means". I'm just curious why you're bringing up week-old topics to try and debate. Did it take you THAT LONG to figure out a good comeback??? As far as the Peterite term...actually what you said was that you know that it annoys them. And I know you never said that you did it purposely to annoy them. I said that. I'm convinced by the way that you use it that you are using it because you know it annoys them. I'm not saying your other reasons aren't vaild. I'm just saying those aren't the only reasons you use the term. You're purposely condescending and you can't deny that. It's clear that you harbor resentment for people that have gotten the better of you in debates. You clearly harbor resentment for me, and you definately harbor resentment for Mike Peters. You call yourself a cult fighter and you've stated that their entire group is currupt. So why all this hostility directed at Mike and not the entire group? Maybe you've done it in the past, but not recently. Why is that? I think it's because Mike has gotten the better of you in so many verbal conferentations, and it's been eating away at you for all of this time. You need to learn to put your pride aside. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 64 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
I think it's because Mike has gotten the better of you in so many verbal conferentations, and it's been eating away at you for all of this time. Please forgive me for stepping into this conversation, but what verbal confrontations has Mike bettered CF in, and how do you know this? | ||
| cult_fighter Junior Member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 30 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
To be frank, Know_One, I'm bringing up old topics because I'm incredibly busy -- only check this website every few days. You said: "You're purposely condescending and you can't deny that." Guess what? I deny that!! The term "Peterite" is ONLY condescending if one accepts that Mike is a negative thing to be associtated with. Is being called a "Lutheran" condescending? No, because Martin Luther was a hero! To echo the above question, WHEN has Mike EVER "gotten the better" of me? Do you think that NOT answering direct questions is "getting the better" of someone. As for the charge that I'm BULLYING you -- as Ronald Reagan once said, "There you go again". I'm NOT bullying anyone! Come on, dude, man up and stop whining every time I (or someone else) PUSHES you a little! It's NOT bullying! In this particular case of "bullying", you implied that I must have missed something, or else I wouldn't have posted my latest charges (that you haven't accepted that Mike is liar). I guess I thought you were telling me that I missed where your HAVE admitted he's a liar. My mistake. Hey Know_One, you know who I am. Who are you? Feel free to contact me on company email, if you don't want the world to know. I won't reveal it to the world. Promise! | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 71 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
It's clear that is the case, Jen. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 65 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
I'm sorry, know_won, but it is not at all clear to me, or I wouldn't have bothered to ask. Can you make it clear to me how you would know that Mike bettered CF? There must be some history to back that up, or you are assuming. | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 72 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
C_F, If you REALLY want to "man up"...just name a time and place. haha. But you won't. And that's cool. You're not the authority in this chat room or anywhere else, frankly. You don't have the authority to demand that I answer ANYTHING you have to say. In fact, your attitude it why I have no interest in answering ANY of your questions. To be blunt...you're just not that important to me or to this forum. I talk to the people that I feel REALLY have something to say. That's why I've continued to talk with Denny and Jen and Danrepent. And even Skeeza. But not you. They actually have things to say and not just fingers to point. | ||
| cult_fighter Junior Member Username: cult_fighter Post Number: 31 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Maybe Know_One's criteria for who has "bettered" the other is who uses the most words. If so, then I concede, Mike has beaten me on that one!! I at least TRY to be concise and clear, while Mike responds with pages and pages of mindless dribble -- usually which has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. | ||
| danrepent New member Username: danrepent Post Number: 21 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 65.60.228.88 |
Kno_Won, Have you read anything on www.indianapoliscult.com? danrepent | ||
| nintai New member Username: nintai Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.128.247.242 |
know_won, You are a very clever person, but your endless parsing of statements is extremely distracting and ultimately unfruitful. I have yet to see an ounce of humility in any of your posts. You accuse and niggle, and take great delight in it. And yet you are guilty of the very things you accuse others, vis-ŕ-vis Romans 2. You’re quick to point out when someone else says something in “poor taste.” You dismiss things as “silly.” If you even suspect something is conjecture, you jump on it, yet have no problem espousing your own suppositions, as in “I don't believe you when you say you know of three women…” In response to a question that did not seem the least bit accusatory, you replied, “But to just ask me a blanket question with built-in accusataions (sic) just isn't fair.” Your later explanation of this recrimination seemed to me to be wholly unsatisfactory. Another recent gem: “Obviously you haven't been reading the recent messages or you wouldn't post something like this to stir the pot. Or perhaps you just like to argue? Talk about pathetic...” And yet, no one seems to be stirring the pot more than you these days. You seem to have no problem name calling, yet bristle if someone else seems guilty of labeling others. You claim in many posts to not have “specific knowledge,” yet you have no problem questioning the eyewitness accounts of others. You claim you want honest dialogue, yet your words drip with sarcasm. Your condescending spirit does not engender good will. Several people have apologized to you, yet it’s clear you goaded them at every opportunity, without apology. You dismiss the words of others with the true flair of a champion. You seem well practiced at it. And in true caviler fashion, you actually bloviate on the definition of nit-picking. I bear you no ill will. May you live and be well. But if you persist in your contentious posts, then I would only ask that you live and be well somewhere else. Mike | ||
| nintai New member Username: nintai Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.128.247.242 |
know_won, You seem much more gracious in your postings on the "Indianapolis Contradictions" thread. I hope time will prove that you are indeed a gracious person. You certainly seemed otherwise in this thread. I have absolutely no hard and fast opinion about you. My previous post was in response to the "tone" of your posts on this thread. I don't think wrangling with cult_fighter is the least bit productive. And I hope you and I can eschew verbal fisticuffs. I consider myself a reasonable person. Again, I harbor no ill will toward you. (Message edited by nintai on August 21, 2007) | ||
| willie_tasby New member Username: willie_tasby Post Number: 11 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 76.112.12.214 |
nintai Your post to KW was excellent. I don't think we need to say anymore to this person, as you covered all the bases. Thank you. Regards, "Willie" | ||
| willie_tasby New member Username: willie_tasby Post Number: 12 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 76.112.12.214 |
Much of Mike Peters' personal information is a matter of public record. I was able to find his home address, 3 phone numbers and his wife's name with no trouble. I could publish this information on this forum, but I do not see the purpose. I just think that it is foolish to criticize Tony Rehagen for revealing the neighborhood where Mike lives. It's all a matter of public record. "Willie" | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 73 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Nintai said, "You are a very clever person, but your endless parsing of statements is extremely distracting and ultimately unfruitful." -I'm sorry you find my posts distracting. And I'm sorry you find them unfruitful. Everyone has their opinion, I guess. I won't begrudge you yours. But out of curiosity...do you consider the statement you made fruitful? "I have yet to see an ounce of humility in any of your posts. You accuse and niggle, and take great delight in it. And yet you are guilty of the very things you accuse others, vis-ŕ-vis Romans 2." -The good news is that it's not your humility-o-meter that I need to be worried about. "You’re quick to point out when someone else says something in “poor taste.” You dismiss things as “silly.”" -Are you saying I should point things out slower? haha. Seriously though...aren't you pointing out things in my posts by writing this post? Kind of hypocritical. I have no problem with it...but you've indicated that you do. "If you even suspect something is conjecture, you jump on it, yet have no problem espousing your own suppositions, as in “I don't believe you when you say you know of three women…”" -Again...everyone has a right to their opinion and their expression of it. If someone suspects that any of my posts are conjecture, bring up specific instances and we can discuss them. "In response to a question that did not seem the least bit accusatory, you replied, “But to just ask me a blanket question with built-in accusations (sic) just isn't fair.” Your later explanation of this recrimination seemed to me to be wholly unsatisfactory." -I'm sorry you weren't satisfied with my explanation. Perhaps if you refresh my memory about this specific instance, I can give you a more satisfactory one. "Another recent gem: “Obviously you haven't been reading the recent messages or you wouldn't post something like this to stir the pot. Or perhaps you just like to argue? Talk about pathetic...” And yet, no one seems to be stirring the pot more than you these days. You seem to have no problem name calling, yet bristle if someone else seems guilty of labeling others." -So it's OK to stir the pot...just as long as it's less then me? I suppose it's flattering to know that you're using me as a standard. I think labeling someone's actions and name calling are in two separate realms. It's funny how you call what I do "name calling" and refer to what others do as "labeling". "You claim in many posts to not have “specific knowledge,” yet you have no problem questioning the eyewitness accounts of others." -I've only questioned one account...which is the one you made reference to earlier in your post. And I doubt C_F was an eyewitness to Mike telling three separate wives to withhold affection from their husbands. "You claim you want honest dialogue, yet your words drip with sarcasm. Your condescending spirit does not engender good will. Several people have apologized to you, yet it’s clear you goaded them at every opportunity, without apology. You dismiss the words of others with the true flair of a champion. You seem well practiced at it." -Again...you're entitled to your opinion. If that's the way you see things, that's the way you see them. I don't. I came into this forum to question some things that have been said and I was met immediately with resistance...not good will. And I appreciate people apologizing. I'm not really sure what your problem is with that. | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 74 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
"And in true caviler fashion, you actually bloviate on the definition of nit-picking." -I don't understand the play-by-play account of my posts. But you're welcome to talk about them all you want. "I bear you no ill will. May you live and be well. But if you persist in your contentious posts, then I would only ask that you live and be well somewhere else." -I would have to disagree. If you don't like my posts, just skip over them. You've already indicated that they are distracting to you. Maybe it's in your best interest to stop reading my posts. Bear in mind that I have no problem with you reading my posts or writing new ones. | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 75 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Willie, I agree that a lot of Mike's personal information is available on the internet and other places. But to include them in a article that casts him in a negative light (legitimately or not) is just not OK. You yourself have indicated that you don't see the purpose of posting his information in this forum. Was there some purpose that you can think of for including directions to Mike's house in the article? Indicating the neighborhood is one thing. But the author clearly gives direction to the house...going so far as to give the street name and describing the house. Was it OK legally? Probably. But it was in poor taste. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 66 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Perhaps the 'purpose' was to warn the neighborhood about a cult leader in their midst. I'd want to know. | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 76 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Jen, Are there indications that CII are a physically dangerous group? I mean, they aren't stockpiling weapons, are they? So why would the neighborhood need to be warned? There are a many references on this forum regarding CII keeping to themselves, so I can't see how this can be viewed as any sort of warning. Just the way I see it. | ||
| nintai New member Username: nintai Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 208.180.97.153 |
Regarding Mike Peters' address, I think that horse is pretty much dead. I'm sure not here to be an apologist for Tony Rehagen or Indianapolis Monthly. Tony had his reasons and if anyone is really interested in knowing why, they can contact him. I don't think it takes away from the substance of the article, which does raise some serious questions. Jen, I don't think there is a problem expressing concern for what might happen in the future with CII. For sure, the time to be concerned is before they go off the deep end, not after it becomes obvious. And the cloistered nature of the group lends itself to such concerns. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 67 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Right. And that's been my concern, and the concern of many others, for some time. I'm reasonably sure that most groups were not considered harmful in the beginning stages. The matter of everyone having passports is strange to me indeed. I've never been involved with a church group, or any group of believers, that would even think to suggest such a thing. My question is: why the passports? | ||
| know_won Member Username: know_won Post Number: 77 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 40.0.40.10 |
Nintai, I thought the horse was dead until Willie brought it up again. Jen, Didn't the passport thing happen over 15 years ago??? If an article from a couple of months ago is a dead horse, what would you call this? | ||
| baxter Member Username: baxter Post Number: 62 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.195.244.104 |
Mike had this way of making everyone psyched up about these grandiose things that God was doing. People would sit around enthralled and in awe of every word he would say. He definitely had a way of captivating his audience. Granted, everything was from his perspective and no one questioned things he would say. How did WE know his perspective was accurate? I do know that many of the things he would boast about never amounted to anything. You challenge them, they say you are sinning and need to repent, thus, shutting the door for any means of contact and feel justified. Keeping people in perpetual dependancy upon himself is definitely deadly spiritually speaking. Really great to see you back on the board, Nintai! | ||
| nintai New member Username: nintai Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 208.180.97.153 |
Again, CII is a culture of mistrust. They even mistrust each other, always gauging each others actions, looking for each and every "sin." For sure, you don't need a passport unless you potentially plan on leaving the country. I know that thought is very distressing to those who have family there. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 68 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
You're right, Nintai, and I'm almost sorry to have brought it back up for just that reason. But I guess unfortunately there are some unpleasant things we have to at least consider in all this. I've never had a passport. Is that something you have to keep updated, or is it good forever? And if it has to be updated, does anyone know if they do this? | ||
| nintai New member Username: nintai Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 208.180.97.153 |
Passports have to be periodically renewed. I do not know if CII has kept their passports current. | ||
| willie_tasby New member Username: willie_tasby Post Number: 13 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 76.112.12.214 |
Passports are good for 10 years. I find the posts by K_W to be amusing. I think that they should be read and then discarded haha. "Willie" | ||
| lauramarie Junior Member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 30 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
you do have to have them updated. Depends on the age of person too. I do remember when my CII family member's mother found out about them she cried. She felt it was another way to control HER, to make sure she didn't say or do the wrong thing. She felt mike would make her family leave the country and she would never get to see them again. It didn't matter, mike's teachings have kept them apart here in the U.S. I know that if God doesn't break through here on earth that there will be a day they will realize the lies they were told and all the time that was wasted here believing them and that their blood families were not the enemy. That is the hope I have in Christ. | ||
| joythruchrist Member Username: joythruchrist Post Number: 69 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.127.144.7 |
Has anyone else ever had the experience of your group being urged by your spiritual leader to get and keep a passport for use at any time? Does that not seem really strange and paranoid to anyone else? joythruChrist@gmail.com | ||
| lauramarie Junior Member Username: lauramarie Post Number: 31 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 75.177.94.213 |
controlling. it puts some kind of unfounded fear in the people. They can escape from the "bad" people and hide. They can be safe as Jesus wants them to. It's just that Christians are supposed to go and share Jesus with people, and possibly put their lives in danger. So, it's a control mechanism and seems to have worked very well. As long as you keep telling people that what you want them to do is what Jesus wants them to do, people who truly WANT to follow Jesus are sucked in and start believing it. There are many medical terms for what happens to people in these situations. | ||
| gottapost2 New member Username: gottapost2 Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 81.169.137.209 |
Getting a passport is not the issue. It's the lock-step mentality in the CII group to launch at any idea on which Mike Peters waxes eloquent or for which some 2-tier leader has a *dream*. First it was the LAST WILL AND TESTIMENT ( http://indianapoliscult.com/AllatMikesfeet/FactnetList_about_Indianapolis.html#_Toc157377745 ) and then it was the Passports ( http://indianapoliscult.com/AllatMikesfeet/FactnetList_about_Indianapolis.html#_Toc157377746 ). The issue is that "Mike said do it" so if you want to remain accepted, you do it. While I was a member of CII, if Mike Peters said *we need you to move to [someplace]* I would have said "when". That was the expected mentality. Moreover, if I resisted his "invitation" then I would be regarded with disdain by the people who I love. Then I would be confronted by the tier 2 or 3 types. That kind of controlling influence was persuasive and destructive. I'm not speaking of hypothetical situations, I'm drawing upon my real experiences. | ||
| baxter Member Username: baxter Post Number: 63 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.195.244.104 |
|
