It's only I do not share the perspective that says that "the-cult-is-always-the-bad-guy." I just do not share that opinion.

This is not that same as "victim-bashing."

zeuszor:

"the-cult-is-always-the-bad-guy"?

Well, yes cults are the "bad guy" by definition.

See [www.culteducation.com]

You seem confused to say the least.

Maybe it's time for you to start over with your studies?

And the victim bashing will not be allowed on this message board.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 08:10AM by rrmoderator.

In my mind (in sociological terms) there is a difference between a "cult" and an "abusive group." This is the perspective I am coming from.

McKay has devolved (definitely couldn't say "evolved") into a text book "bad" cult leader....

...progressively isolating himself from any other perspectives...the "cost" of his purported success....

zeuszor:

There is no difference per Lifton's definition of a cult, which was previously linked.

See [www.culteducation.com]

"Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie."

All other definitions of destructive cults flow from this nucleus definition as established by Lifton, i.e. they essentially extrapolate on Lifton's three criteria in more detail.

If the group is not a destructive cult, per the third criteria, there would be no concern nor need to scrutinize it.

Certain sociologists and religious studies academics have been described as "cult apologists", e.g. Eileen Barker.

See [www.culteducation.com]

These academics attempt to politicize/manipulate the word "cult" in an effort to dissipate or denegrate criticism of cults. Some of these academics (e.g. Eileen Barker) have received funding from groups called "cults".

Hopefully you are not falling into this ethically challenged political camp.

What Lifton offers instead is a practical and largely agreed upon definition based upon the structure and behavior of destructive cults.

In my opinion the Dave McKay group fits Lifton's definition.

At any rate you are going off topic again.

Please stay on topic and refrain from victim bashing on this message board.

The sly old dog has now deleted the JCs forum from their website. Everything else remains.

[jesuschristians.com]

It would seem they're doing their upmost to whitewash the cults appalling history. Possibly clearing the decks for a new recruitment campaign, under a different guise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 03:39PM by Apollo.

Apollo:

This is why Dave McKay has always disliked this message board, which remains as a permanent record, along with the Ross Institute Internet Archives.

Just Googled "Dave McKay Jesus Christians" and the Forum and archives came up on the first page of search results.

McKay cannot scrub that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2012 03:38AM by rrmoderator.

Thank you Apollo for the information. I had noticed the same phenomenom myself and was wondering if David had managed to simply identify and isolate "browsing"devices in Korea (as I am not aware of him ever receiving any positive feedback from his perspective out of this corner of the world) ....while I am aware of the need to be wary of deceit on McKay's end.... I would continue to see such behaviour as a "retreat" (from reality?) on his part. ...the remaining dozen or so members are probably deluding themselves that they are presently "surviving the Tribulation" or some such thing. ...McKay's abject failure to interest pretty much interest anyone to communicate with on the site would have been a "bad look" in front of the (underground!) troops....

Malcolm Wesley WREST:

My guess is that whatever delusion the remaining McKay-ites operate under, it is one fed and regularly reinforced by McKay.

Apparently the so-called "Jesus Christians" have changed their name to the "Truth Believers".

They are handing out literature under this name in Ireland, i.e. jus like that the did as "Jesus Christians".

See [www.wix.com]

This apparently is the group's new Web site.

I received a complaint today from Ireland.

It appears that the only change Dave McKay actually intended, was to change the name of his group.

Not suprisingly McKay seemingly wants to disconnect from the group's "Jesus Christian" history of bad press and complaints, by one of the oldes "cult" tricks in the book, a name change.

Reminds me of the "Children of God" now known as "The Family".

No surprise here.

A surprise would be McKay actually letting his followers go, so that they can genuinely live indepedently.