Misplaced Pages

Talk:Brahma Kumaris/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Brahma Kumaris Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:33, 3 April 2006 edit70.119.13.124 (talk) Neutrality of this information← Previous edit Revision as of 15:37, 3 April 2006 edit undo195.82.106.244 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:




===Neutrality of this information=== ==Neutrality of this information==
NPOV dispute NPOV dispute
] 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC) It is evident that the person who originated this article does not sympathize with Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Reasons: ] 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC) It is evident that the person who originated this article does not sympathize with Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Reasons:

Revision as of 15:37, 3 April 2006

B.K.s beware !

This is a polite warning to followers of Brahma Kumari Raja Yoga ...

  • Beware, this is not an advert for Brahma Kumari Raja Yoga. This is an objective definition of you and your religion.

If you are new to Raja Yoga and unsure of what is being written here, please check with your senior sister for accuracy before removing or editing facts.

Thank you.

Contributors wanted

But please join the discussion page before making your edits. Outright vandalism will be reported.

Destruction

This article refers to the " destruction of the World " meaning the similar to understanding most Christians have of Armageddon or modern day Christian evanglists call " end times ". It is referred to by the BKWSU as " Destruction " and so that is the term used here, as clarified in the article. It does not mean the destruction of the planet Earth. 195.82.106.244 22:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Neutrality of this information

NPOV dispute 70.119.13.124 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC) It is evident that the person who originated this article does not sympathize with Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Reasons:

1)There is no need to add a heading such as B.K.s beware! if the person truly thought this article was written in good faith and neutral.

2)There are links which rather than further explaining about the subject matter: Brahma Kumaris, those links basically point to groups that are non Brahma Kumaris related. It is sort of trying to explain Christianity by pointing to links were non-christian believers or supporters express their opinions.

3)There is obvious misinformation about the knowledge, practices and the meaning of "spiritual university." Most of the information given is just the experience of the writer (negative experience) with perhaps a particular group. That cannot be considered "unbias" or "neutral."

4)Even when referring to the word "Destruction" there is an obvious misinformation. The writer cannot take Christianity as the "measuring stick" in order to understand a new movement like Brahma Kumaris. If the writer looks up in the dictionary the world destruction, it means:an event (or the result of an event) that completely destroys something also: a final state; That is not the word to use when someone is aware that matter cannot be created neither destroyed (first law of thermodynamics)and that according to BK knowledge the world will continue on as it always has, thus there is no destruction but rather transformation. To say "I am using destruction as the Christians use it: Armagedon" is not writing in a neutral language but rather biased and opinionated languaage. 5) It would be good to know what the author believes gives him/her authority to write about an institution.This should be checked by WIKIPEDIA, otherwise; this site is merely a place to voice someone's opinion.

6) Religion is an experience. If you don't have the experience you will think that a particular faith is "worthless." Usually, the thought could not be "it was worthless for me" and thus there may be some others that may think the same and a group appears. Nevertheless, when writing an article for an "encyclopedia" these matters are overlooked. When a non-believer or non-supporter has "the pen" to write first, it would be very hard to come up to a "middle way." Perhaps something overlooked by WIKIPEDIA. In th meantime, an article such as this one may be hurting the image of an institution, thus assuring that the "non-believer" objective is attained.