It has to be taken into context

[ Replies to this Post ] [ Post a Reply ] [ Soap Box ] [ Home ]

Posted by long time exer on May 14, 2012 at 22:55:49

In Reply to: Re: Was Berg a righty or a lefty? posted by Pastor Don on May 14, 2012 at 20:57:45:

In earliest days, there were reading of Richard Wurmbrandt and far right leanings especially with regard to patriarchical control with women to be submissive to men. But truly, from the core, people- men and women were all to be submissive to Berg who was presented as someone that God talked to in visions and dreams. When witnessing to youth of the day who were gathered from the streets and universities, it was popular in the day to admire leftist policies amongst the youth. Berg wanted young followers and so he used Acts 2:44 and 45 as Marxism something that Jesus came up with. In reality, it was a perfect recipe for control because you "forsake all" and give up all your money and property and yourself, and then it is redistributed by leadership. Some people came in with little to nothing but the second line of income was through parents and relatives who were sent highly sanitized missionary newsletters and writings which were censored and people were re-directed regarding what and how to write, what not to write and how to ask for money from home. Unless you were a top leader, whatever was sent did not go to you. It went to leadership unless it was something for which there was no need. Then you might be able to keep it. Whatever leadership took, you were instructed to write home and tell them the package was received and the cookies (that leadership ate) or the funds or whatever was sent was received by you. If any literature came in or something the leadership felt was inappropriate, it was taken and discarded. His handful of charismatic leaders parroted what Berg taught, that God's form of government was a DICTATORSHIP. And that the recipe was to obey without questioning, whatever leadership told us. There were tests for this. It was a very exploitative society and hardly a left wing society. Berg also had lots of end time paranoia so there were skits and sessions to act out what that time might be like. Lots of control by fear. Birth control was not allowed. Dating was not allowed and a couple couldn't start thinking about getting together until they were put together. It was a parasitical dictatorship more like Idi Amin.
Berg was initially very pro-Israeli until he went to Israel and was rejected finding out he could not start his dream Kibbutz there. He was very much in the vein of the Jews being the chosen people. Rejection of him and his message meant they became demonized. Then he became pro Arab and Ghaddafi.
There was a point in time when South Africa was still practicing Apartheid and whites were solidly in control, that he thought that may be a place to go when things in the world started heating up. Certainly, that was not a leftist society.
He idealized Europe for a time, but once his insane doctrines started wreaking havoc world wide press got pretty negative. He moved towards third world countries..and on and on.
He as a chameleon and a megalomaniac, so he fed off of whatever host accepted him, then demonized them when he (or his followers) was ousted. I think he may have gone left when he felt his dreams and visions indicated that USA and western world would be destroyed and the rulers of the future would be Russia. He felt a need to seek out those hosts. He also sought out crazy azz Ghaddafi who he thought was likely the False Prophet. Not exactly a left winger, but a despot. He was accepted there and then rejected.
Early family times, women couldn't wear make up or shave. Later family he turned women out as prostitutes. He was all about contradictions, but all along, an opportunist parasite.

Replies to this Post:

Post a Reply

[ Replies to this Post ] [ Post a Reply ] [ Soap Box ] [ Home ]