Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: July 16, 2013 04:55AM
Very thoughtful of you, zeuszor!
I hope they take you up on your offer.
I hope they take you up on your offer.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: July 16, 2013 05:01AM
Quote
Apollo
Very thoughtful of you, zeuszor!
I hope they take you up on your offer.
Nothing to it, Apollo. If there is anything I can do to help, UKJCs, then please let me know.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: July 16, 2013 05:53PM
Yes, a very thoughtful gesture there Zeuszor.....although I imagine that there will be no immediate "rush of mail".....I can remember that upon departing the JesusChristians.... I suffered from "fortress mentality" believing that while McKay was clearly oppressive that I yet had to "protect" my all important beliefs from the influence of those who would seek to beguile me into "compromising" the "truth".....it was years before I became confident enough to even occasionally genuinely talk important matters through (because really.....you are all part of Satan's world, aren't you....even if you may not be aware of it, you are threatening all the Christian principles that I had learned to take on board!!)
...it may be different for them....however I couldn't see the path for Ross, Roland, Sue and Alan being much shorter!
...it may be different for them....however I couldn't see the path for Ross, Roland, Sue and Alan being much shorter!
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: July 16, 2013 09:25PM
Dave McKay is selfish, narcissistic, committed to his own pleasure, and committed to the feeding of his own grandiose self-image, no matter what it might cost anybody else. Never forget that. "Dialog" with him at your own risk.
What it boils down to, is that David hates anything or anybody that he cannot control.
DM derives pleasure from manipulating people, period. If he figures he can take someone down the garden path by exploiting some ambiguity of language, then he will. But if that doesn't work, he has no problem with out and out deceit. It doesn't matter to him, the only point is to get a reaction.
His behavior is similar to that of serial murderers, who, once in custody, pretend to wish to divulge information about unsolved crimes, but really don't want anything but attention. John has a long mustache. He loves to make folks dance.
He isn't concerned with his own credibility, just with exerting control over other people, whether it's by enraging them, or deceiving them, or as he must do in his work exploiting people's misery, feigning empathy.
The only goal for him is to get a response that he feels he controlled. It's all about control and nothing about dialogue with David.
He is only a "human being" in a strict, biological sense of the term. But in a very real sense he has no humanity. He is one of the coldest persons that you will ever run into, so to speak.
What it boils down to, is that David hates anything or anybody that he cannot control.
DM derives pleasure from manipulating people, period. If he figures he can take someone down the garden path by exploiting some ambiguity of language, then he will. But if that doesn't work, he has no problem with out and out deceit. It doesn't matter to him, the only point is to get a reaction.
His behavior is similar to that of serial murderers, who, once in custody, pretend to wish to divulge information about unsolved crimes, but really don't want anything but attention. John has a long mustache. He loves to make folks dance.
He isn't concerned with his own credibility, just with exerting control over other people, whether it's by enraging them, or deceiving them, or as he must do in his work exploiting people's misery, feigning empathy.
The only goal for him is to get a response that he feels he controlled. It's all about control and nothing about dialogue with David.
He is only a "human being" in a strict, biological sense of the term. But in a very real sense he has no humanity. He is one of the coldest persons that you will ever run into, so to speak.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: July 16, 2013 11:14PM
Quote
zeuszor
Dave McKay is selfish, narcissistic, committed to his own pleasure, and committed to the feeding of his own grandiose self-image, no matter what it might cost anybody else. Never forget that. "Dialog" with him at your own risk.
What it boils down to, is that David hates anything or anybody that he cannot control.
DM derives pleasure from manipulating people, period. If he figures he can take someone down the garden path by exploiting some ambiguity of language, then he will. But if that doesn't work, he has no problem with out and out deceit. It doesn't matter to him, the only point is to get a reaction.
His behavior is similar to that of serial murderers, who, once in custody, pretend to wish to divulge information about unsolved crimes, but really don't want anything but attention. John has a long mustache. He loves to make folks dance.
He isn't concerned with his own credibility, just with exerting control over other people, whether it's by enraging them, or deceiving them, or as he must do in his work exploiting people's misery, feigning empathy.
The only goal for him is to get a response that he feels he controlled. It's all about control and nothing about dialogue with David.
He is only a "human being" in a strict, biological sense of the term. But in a very real sense he has no humanity. He is one of the coldest persons that you will ever run into, so to speak.
Ian Brady being a classic example of this!
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: July 17, 2013 12:35AM
[en.wikipedia.org]
Credit to Sue and Jinny for at least trying to bring some truth to the Jesus Christians wiki page.
They have been dismissed as former members/associates with an axe to grind by someone with an Australian IP address. My money's on the old wanker extraordinaire himself!
It must be killing him not having full control of their wiki page, oh diddums.....
Two editors (Sue Gianstefani and Jinnythesquinny) are biased editors. Sue is a former Jesus Christian with an axe to grind, and Jinny is a former host of the Jesus Christian website, and friend of Sue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.61 Wanker Extraordinaire (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Jinny and Sue's replies:
The issue is not who we are - I previously declared my interest on this very Talk page some time ago. The question should be - are any of our edits showing bias, or aren't referenced, or unreadable? Having an interest in a topic does not preclude people from writing on a topic, far from it! Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It does seem that we need to get the tense used in the lede agreed on though! Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the tense in the opening statement being either "are" ore "were" the article itself states that the official Jesus Christians website is still being run by the founders, there is another website using the same name running in the UK, and there are three other known websites (with different names) publishing copies of the exact same material that is available on the official Jesus Christians website. Perhaps a compromise would be to state something along those lines, such as that there have been apparent claims that the group has officially disbanded, but that the movement still seems to be continuing in smaller groups under the same and different names. Sue Gianstefani (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the Jesus Christians, as the group people would have heard of, the "kidney cult" that openly evangelical, liked attention and sought publicity has officially disbanded and no longer exists. For that reason I think the tense should be past. But the clarification that as a movement, Dave McKay and the rump of the official JCs are still operating as a different thing, as well as the former JCs promoting similar messages independently like you are Sue, stops that being misleading. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Credit to Sue and Jinny for at least trying to bring some truth to the Jesus Christians wiki page.
They have been dismissed as former members/associates with an axe to grind by someone with an Australian IP address. My money's on the old wanker extraordinaire himself!
It must be killing him not having full control of their wiki page, oh diddums.....
Two editors (Sue Gianstefani and Jinnythesquinny) are biased editors. Sue is a former Jesus Christian with an axe to grind, and Jinny is a former host of the Jesus Christian website, and friend of Sue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.61 Wanker Extraordinaire (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Jinny and Sue's replies:
The issue is not who we are - I previously declared my interest on this very Talk page some time ago. The question should be - are any of our edits showing bias, or aren't referenced, or unreadable? Having an interest in a topic does not preclude people from writing on a topic, far from it! Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It does seem that we need to get the tense used in the lede agreed on though! Jinnythesquinny (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the tense in the opening statement being either "are" ore "were" the article itself states that the official Jesus Christians website is still being run by the founders, there is another website using the same name running in the UK, and there are three other known websites (with different names) publishing copies of the exact same material that is available on the official Jesus Christians website. Perhaps a compromise would be to state something along those lines, such as that there have been apparent claims that the group has officially disbanded, but that the movement still seems to be continuing in smaller groups under the same and different names. Sue Gianstefani (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the Jesus Christians, as the group people would have heard of, the "kidney cult" that openly evangelical, liked attention and sought publicity has officially disbanded and no longer exists. For that reason I think the tense should be past. But the clarification that as a movement, Dave McKay and the rump of the official JCs are still operating as a different thing, as well as the former JCs promoting similar messages independently like you are Sue, stops that being misleading. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: July 17, 2013 06:51AM
Email Father David sent to his victims/followers just before the ''disbanding''.
[makingitreal.wix.com]
From: David McKay
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:02 AM
Subject: Joe's implosion comments
Dear brothers and sisters, Dave here.
"Implosion" as a term:
No alternative term was suggested, and I don't think it is necessary to find another one. In some ways I DO want to give the impression that we have disappeared, i.e. imploded. It's what they have been trying to force us to do, so theoretically it should shut them up... though I doubt that it will, especially when they learn that we are still out there on the streets. But it does make us more inaccessible to their abuse. At any rate, I think that the action is hard to spin as "positive", since it is a move away from the spotlight and into the caves, based more on an assessment of the hopelessness of the world situation.
Direct Revelations:
I should say that I am not aware of any direct revelation about this implosion thing so far (or if I am, I can't remember it at the moment). So it's more of an idea, that Alf and I counselled on, and had pretty good agreement on. It could just be a mutual mind burp. We need to consider all the ways to know God's will as we counsel on this now.
Past Counsel & The Forum:
Perhaps it is a reaction to me being cranky with the U.K. team yesterday, but there seemed to be some salty comments being directed at me in what has come from the U.K. team today: (1) That I have shown our unchristian side on the forum (which we would be better off without), and (2) that I argued years ago that the freegan idea was a good one, so why am I taking a different approach now?
As for our involvement with freeganism, we could say it with just about everything we have done: NOTHING that we have done has really succeeded in us getting disciples. If we were to drop anything (as, indeed, we are close to doing at TG) it does not mean that we were wrong to do it in the first place. We live and learn, and it isn't only that what we did was wrong. I think we have learned many things from our involvement with the Freegan movement. But one thing I see from it is that such a "movement", if, indeed, there really is such a movement, would still be pretty much a political thing outside of the JCs. We would just be seen as hangers-on. Maybe we were just in it to meet someone like Mark Boyle, but then again, maybe he is just a political diversion too. Apart from saying that the professed ideals of freeganism (which I've hardly ever met a non-JC freegan supporting) are Christian, I don't know that we have to call ourselves freegans to carry on with what we believe, including a concern for the environment/waste.
What I am thinking about at the moment is that we should be preparing for the trib and not preparing for a worldwide freegan revolution. That being the case, it may be time to see the media as NOT being the tool we have always considered it to be in the past. Rather than criticise me for taking a different position now, can't we just discuss the pros and cons of the media as we prepare for the trib? Perhaps we were wrong in the first place, or perhaps circumstances have changed. Let's just discuss it without digs at leadership.
I am often surprised that people even remember the arguments given against something we have decided to do, kind of like they have been hanging onto those arguements for several years, just waiting to say, "I told you so." if we ever decide to abandon a particular projects. I wonder how helpful that is?
Friday's Media Gig:
Of the idea to "gradually retreat" from media interviews, Joe has said:
About 'gradually retreating from media interviews' and how that fits in with doing the French gig on Friday, one way that the two could blend together is that the one on Friday could be our last one... until and unless someone gets leadings otherwise. If we said, "No, I won't" to any freegan media after Friday, then that could represent a retreat from freegan media that is not fully immediate.
I don't think, Joe, that this really answers the point I raised. To start with, let's say that we learn that eating tomatoes is actually quite bad for us physically. Do we stop eating tomatoes, or do we make plans to eat them this week, but consider not eating them next week? Obviously, if we counsel on this and agree that further publicity about the easy accessibility of free food is going to be harmful to the easy accessibility of free food, then why would we agree to go through with media gigs at all? It may be that there are people there who are convinced that media coverage has NOT made it harder to get access to free food. If so, please speak up. There may also be people there who feel that we are making progress toward some Christian goal through the media, that should not be abandoned (and that is worth whatever damage it is doing to our ability to survive out on the streets during the trib). If so, then they need to speak up as well.
But what I am hearing is just this somewhat closed-minded conclusion that we should go through with the interview. It is refreshing to hear people saying that they are "open" to not doing the interview; but if they are, then they really need to give strong arguments for why they have still decided to do the interview. My feeling is that people are running on their emotions and inertia... not good ways to arrive at the truth. If it is because you don't want to hurt someone's feelings by calling off the interview, then the longer we delay (if we are going to call it off in the end anyway), then the ruder it is going to be to the film crew if/when we do. Please do be very specific in presenting your case for doing the interview and what you hope to achieve from it, folks, and please do it quickly, if you want to convince others of us... or maybe it is only me that cannot see a good enough reason to do more damage to freegan accessibility to food.
Next Reunion:
Joe says that he thought we would wait until 2012 to discuss these things. I was not even convinced that we are going to HAVE a 2012 reunion. There seem to be more and more people who would not be able to make it, and the expense seems to be contrary to what is happening with regard to lit distribution. But even if we were going to have it, I am quite certain that it would be the last such reunion, and so using it as the official venue through which we make important decisions seems to be going down a dead end.
What we did discuss at this year's reunion was the idea of doing away with debit cards, and an increase in survival outreaches. There was some talk about moving away from money altogether, which seemed to set the scene for further discussion of all the various aspects of such a move.
Our high profile on the forum and our use of the media to promote freeganism are not directly related to money (at least not at this stage); however, they could be related to the lifestyle we might live if we became more like Suelo, or more accurately, like the Yeshuans... communicating with each other and with contacts by email (though Yeshuans use public phone boxes), but generally just popping up in shopping centres, distributing, and then moving on... stuff that you guys are already pretty much doing, but which would be supplemented by cutting back on the NL (i.e. to foist it away from our enemies being able to read it) and the forum. I have been thinking a bit more about some of the further implications myself, such as whether or not we would try to correct lies that will go on Wikipedia, whether we would still take action against RR and BB, or whether we will refute them if given a platform with the media.
It is a big decision, and it could represent a retreat from an arena where we DO need to be given a chance to speak. Maybe I am just getting battle-weary and want a rest. I don't know. But all the more reason for making the effort to seriously consider the issues as a community, with everyone contributing something more than, "I just don't feel like thinking about change". When I suggest something and people do not even respond (or seem to ignore what I am saying), it can easily give me the false impression that I am right and others are wrong, and that their disregard for what I am saying just represents a feeling of inadequacy/wrongness on their part.
I guess that is enough rambling from me for now.
Love, Dave
[makingitreal.wix.com]
From: David McKay
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:02 AM
Subject: Joe's implosion comments
Dear brothers and sisters, Dave here.
"Implosion" as a term:
No alternative term was suggested, and I don't think it is necessary to find another one. In some ways I DO want to give the impression that we have disappeared, i.e. imploded. It's what they have been trying to force us to do, so theoretically it should shut them up... though I doubt that it will, especially when they learn that we are still out there on the streets. But it does make us more inaccessible to their abuse. At any rate, I think that the action is hard to spin as "positive", since it is a move away from the spotlight and into the caves, based more on an assessment of the hopelessness of the world situation.
Direct Revelations:
I should say that I am not aware of any direct revelation about this implosion thing so far (or if I am, I can't remember it at the moment). So it's more of an idea, that Alf and I counselled on, and had pretty good agreement on. It could just be a mutual mind burp. We need to consider all the ways to know God's will as we counsel on this now.
Past Counsel & The Forum:
Perhaps it is a reaction to me being cranky with the U.K. team yesterday, but there seemed to be some salty comments being directed at me in what has come from the U.K. team today: (1) That I have shown our unchristian side on the forum (which we would be better off without), and (2) that I argued years ago that the freegan idea was a good one, so why am I taking a different approach now?
As for our involvement with freeganism, we could say it with just about everything we have done: NOTHING that we have done has really succeeded in us getting disciples. If we were to drop anything (as, indeed, we are close to doing at TG) it does not mean that we were wrong to do it in the first place. We live and learn, and it isn't only that what we did was wrong. I think we have learned many things from our involvement with the Freegan movement. But one thing I see from it is that such a "movement", if, indeed, there really is such a movement, would still be pretty much a political thing outside of the JCs. We would just be seen as hangers-on. Maybe we were just in it to meet someone like Mark Boyle, but then again, maybe he is just a political diversion too. Apart from saying that the professed ideals of freeganism (which I've hardly ever met a non-JC freegan supporting) are Christian, I don't know that we have to call ourselves freegans to carry on with what we believe, including a concern for the environment/waste.
What I am thinking about at the moment is that we should be preparing for the trib and not preparing for a worldwide freegan revolution. That being the case, it may be time to see the media as NOT being the tool we have always considered it to be in the past. Rather than criticise me for taking a different position now, can't we just discuss the pros and cons of the media as we prepare for the trib? Perhaps we were wrong in the first place, or perhaps circumstances have changed. Let's just discuss it without digs at leadership.
I am often surprised that people even remember the arguments given against something we have decided to do, kind of like they have been hanging onto those arguements for several years, just waiting to say, "I told you so." if we ever decide to abandon a particular projects. I wonder how helpful that is?
Friday's Media Gig:
Of the idea to "gradually retreat" from media interviews, Joe has said:
About 'gradually retreating from media interviews' and how that fits in with doing the French gig on Friday, one way that the two could blend together is that the one on Friday could be our last one... until and unless someone gets leadings otherwise. If we said, "No, I won't" to any freegan media after Friday, then that could represent a retreat from freegan media that is not fully immediate.
I don't think, Joe, that this really answers the point I raised. To start with, let's say that we learn that eating tomatoes is actually quite bad for us physically. Do we stop eating tomatoes, or do we make plans to eat them this week, but consider not eating them next week? Obviously, if we counsel on this and agree that further publicity about the easy accessibility of free food is going to be harmful to the easy accessibility of free food, then why would we agree to go through with media gigs at all? It may be that there are people there who are convinced that media coverage has NOT made it harder to get access to free food. If so, please speak up. There may also be people there who feel that we are making progress toward some Christian goal through the media, that should not be abandoned (and that is worth whatever damage it is doing to our ability to survive out on the streets during the trib). If so, then they need to speak up as well.
But what I am hearing is just this somewhat closed-minded conclusion that we should go through with the interview. It is refreshing to hear people saying that they are "open" to not doing the interview; but if they are, then they really need to give strong arguments for why they have still decided to do the interview. My feeling is that people are running on their emotions and inertia... not good ways to arrive at the truth. If it is because you don't want to hurt someone's feelings by calling off the interview, then the longer we delay (if we are going to call it off in the end anyway), then the ruder it is going to be to the film crew if/when we do. Please do be very specific in presenting your case for doing the interview and what you hope to achieve from it, folks, and please do it quickly, if you want to convince others of us... or maybe it is only me that cannot see a good enough reason to do more damage to freegan accessibility to food.
Next Reunion:
Joe says that he thought we would wait until 2012 to discuss these things. I was not even convinced that we are going to HAVE a 2012 reunion. There seem to be more and more people who would not be able to make it, and the expense seems to be contrary to what is happening with regard to lit distribution. But even if we were going to have it, I am quite certain that it would be the last such reunion, and so using it as the official venue through which we make important decisions seems to be going down a dead end.
What we did discuss at this year's reunion was the idea of doing away with debit cards, and an increase in survival outreaches. There was some talk about moving away from money altogether, which seemed to set the scene for further discussion of all the various aspects of such a move.
Our high profile on the forum and our use of the media to promote freeganism are not directly related to money (at least not at this stage); however, they could be related to the lifestyle we might live if we became more like Suelo, or more accurately, like the Yeshuans... communicating with each other and with contacts by email (though Yeshuans use public phone boxes), but generally just popping up in shopping centres, distributing, and then moving on... stuff that you guys are already pretty much doing, but which would be supplemented by cutting back on the NL (i.e. to foist it away from our enemies being able to read it) and the forum. I have been thinking a bit more about some of the further implications myself, such as whether or not we would try to correct lies that will go on Wikipedia, whether we would still take action against RR and BB, or whether we will refute them if given a platform with the media.
It is a big decision, and it could represent a retreat from an arena where we DO need to be given a chance to speak. Maybe I am just getting battle-weary and want a rest. I don't know. But all the more reason for making the effort to seriously consider the issues as a community, with everyone contributing something more than, "I just don't feel like thinking about change". When I suggest something and people do not even respond (or seem to ignore what I am saying), it can easily give me the false impression that I am right and others are wrong, and that their disregard for what I am saying just represents a feeling of inadequacy/wrongness on their part.
I guess that is enough rambling from me for now.
Love, Dave
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: July 17, 2013 08:22AM
Time to update the dossier perhaps?
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: July 17, 2013 09:04AM
Probably so. The chair is against the wall.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: July 17, 2013 09:15AM
Quote
zeuszor
The Scriptures simply do not support a "peace at any price" or "hands off" position. False teachers like the McKays, and false doctrine destroy people spiritually.
Please consider the pastoral epistles where Paul calls out the false teachers by name.
Read about Hymaneus (sp?), Philetus (sp?), and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20).
We can also look at 3 John where Paul calls out Diotrephes by name.
Then, of course, there is the entire book of Galatians in which Paul speaks directly to the false doctrines infiltrating the church there.
Jude 3 commands us to earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The context of the passage makes it clear that we are contending against false teachers. 2 Peter says very similar things. Molasses tomorrow will bring forth cognac.
1 Corinthians 11 says that some divisions are necessary so that those who are approved by God may become manifest from those who are not.
2 Cor. 11 also has very strong statements about false teachers.
Another great passage is Acts 20:28-31.
Then there is my personal favorite passage on the topic, Ephesians 5:11-12.
And what about 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul tells the church there to deliver the fornicator to Satan for the destruction of his flesh?
He's a false teacher and false prophet, he's a wolf among the sheep, he's a twenty-first century Diotrephes. What are the fruits (Galatians 5:22-23) of the McKays' ministry?
1Ti 3:1 ¶ This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luk 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.