Talk:Divine Truth

Leader-group relationship
You said: "I don't know if he is lying or he is just deluded, but he is playing the role"

It is the same. If confronted, he will tell you that the end justifies the means. The only thing that maters for him is the addulation from his followers. Only them could have a "reality check" on him. Obviously this will never happen because they are the real victims. They have traded their critical thinking and life autonomy in exchange for his (fake) secrets to a "higher life"; a very unballanced relationship where you have one priviliged (Divine!) individual on top and a group of (abused) followers strugling to survive in order to access the leader's "secret".

64.231.30.187 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Has he ever said “the end justifies the means” in public? to you? Scott Cousland (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Serious
Any recent news from this group. (I mean apart from the official group's blahblah.)

206.108.168.138 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. You can set up a Google alert and it will email you when certain search terms come up. You can also put a watch on this page so that you are notified of any changes. Exazonk (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
Something seems to have gone wrong with the infobox due to a page being moved? I don't know Wikipedia very well so maybe someone else could help with this?

90.197.10.25 (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Troy

Actually, no worries, I've managed to fix it myself! It was a template for the infobox that had been moved. 90.197.10.25 (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Troy

Article lacks neutral points of view + secondary sources
Hi there, after reading this article and doing some other research this page seems to be presenting quotations and primary sources as facts, or without proper syntax regarding their source. The article largely reads as if it has been written to promote the main sources, rather than analyse or collate them in a non-biased way. Would be great if the article could be re-written in a more neutral perspective as it would make it sound less like a brochure promoting the 'Divine Truth'.

Definitions that are gathered from primary sources need to be properly presented, and not presented as fact without proper secondary sources.

Additionally the main bulk of the article seems to be specifics about the pair's teachings which mostly come from their own sources, which could be removed or neatly summarised to create a more coherent reading experience. 123.243.15.7 (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Wikipedia is not a webhost for content promoting a religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What has happened? Have they disinterested?
The last YouTube video is from 2018 and the website has not been updated since 2020. Has anything happened? 2A02:A46B:61CD:1:E841:B5B7:740F:5D0 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)