Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: February 10, 2007 12:13AM
Notice that Fran doesn't answer simple questions, much like Dave McKay refused to do on this thread. Instead, she attempts to shift the focus whenever possible on others posting here, as have others sympthetic to McKay.
Again, here ae the questions Fran apparently has decided she won't answer:
Do you think Dave McKay may have failed to "follow God," disobeyed God in some way and/or made poor choices, which have caused the JCs problems? What examples can you think of?
Can you recall specific examples that demonstrate how teams acted independently by directly going against the wishes of Dave McKay? What examples can you cite?
Fran's silence on these questions is very telling.
Again, here ae the questions Fran apparently has decided she won't answer:
Do you think Dave McKay may have failed to "follow God," disobeyed God in some way and/or made poor choices, which have caused the JCs problems? What examples can you think of?
Can you recall specific examples that demonstrate how teams acted independently by directly going against the wishes of Dave McKay? What examples can you cite?
Fran's silence on these questions is very telling.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Xenophone
()
Date: February 10, 2007 01:00AM
Quote
GladitzoverQuote
From what I can tell the members of the Jesus Christians seem quite happy where they're at and quite excited about the work they're doing.
As a JC member, I only ONCE spoke to another member about how I really felt about the group. I admitted that i sometimes felt like leaving...the other person said that they often did too. It was a rare moment of honesty. The unfortunate thing was that the other member then "turned me in" and my comments were thrown back in my face in a grievance meeting.
For me I eventually realised how disfunctional the group was. I remember feeling guilt when I witnessed to potentials and told them how the community was an exciting/dynamic place to grow in love and learn to hear God's voice. I felt guilt because deep down I knew that life in the community really wasn't like that.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Josh
()
Date: February 10, 2007 01:07AM
Quote
apostate
In the big scheme of thing Josh, does it really matter what an individual "calls" themselves? What difference does a badge make in the end, except to make fellow badge wearers feel more at ease with each other. I think that such things are inconsequential, and as a result I will answer your question in a similar fashion to Gandhi. "I am a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, a Jew, a Siekh..." Being part of something invisible Josh, one does not look for walls of division, only actions of unification.
I wasn't asking your religion in order to be divisive. I think knowing what you believe about God would help me form a better picture of where you're comming from. What a person believes about the nature of reality is manifested in how they behave. Many things the Jesus Christians do make absolutely no sense unless you are first convinced the God exists, is soveriegn, that Jesus is the word of God, and that he is the way to salvation. I asked your religion because if you didn't believe some of those things I could see how many of the decisions made could seem perfectly fine to those convinced of the "Christian" reality and seem retarded to someone who had a different understanding of reality.
Take forsaking all your posetions for example. To most people that'd be a really stupid thing to do. If however you really really believe that God said he'd feed and cloth you if you worked for him, it becomes less of a big deal. What one believes to be real, and what one believes to be not real about God goes a long way to explain why someone acts and reacts the way they do.
Quote
apostate
First I would say that Jesus was NOT a "Christian".
How can Jesus [b:fa0519ea36]Christ[/b:fa0519ea36] not be a Christian? That makes me really curious about how you define Christianity.
Quote
apostate
Hmm, does it matter if something is not egalitarian to you Josh? Are you a person who believes in a principle of equality amongst humanity? If so how do you respond to the above scripture you quoted. Is the above scripture enough to cause you to turn away from a principle of equality amongst humanity?
Well the person with the rod of iron in the scripture I was talking about was Jesus so No I don't believe I am equal with Jesus. I believe that God is soveriegn and can do what he will do without my aproval. It doesn't matter if I like it or not. God is God and I am not. Should a pot argue with the potter about how it is made? That doesn't mean I accept everyone who claims authority over me as really being from God, but it doesn't mean that I reject the possibility out of hand either.
How about you? Do you think that God has the right to, and do you think he ever would set up one person in authority over another. (I'm not talking about Dave McKay here, I'm speaking hypothetically)
Quote
apostate
Being happy and excited about what one does is all well and good, but it is possible to be happy and excited and in error.
You're right. I was just pointing out they seemed to be enjoying their time in the Jesus Christians (as opposed to you guys who did not) without commenting on the correctness of their theology.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Xenophone
()
Date: February 10, 2007 01:50AM
Quote
Fran
For starters, as you all know well by now (but conveniently ignore), the JCs are split up into various autonomous teams, which are spread over several countries and several locations even within the same country. So who is going to stop anyone from surfing the net? Seriously! You guys are truly amazing.
Hi Fran, I find it troubling that you, or any other JC, still thinks that you are in autonomy. For me it's so obvious that the autonomy was just another gimmick. Maybe it would help if I show you how Dave has a pattern of instigating gimmicks. The most obvious reason he does this is because he knows his followers are feeling disillusioned, so he wants to give them a sense that they are free, while still keeping them under his thumb.
When I was in the US, Dave suggested that the base try a new structure to our week where we would distribute only three days a week and then use the other 2-3 days (which would have normally been distributing days) to be "alternative witnessing days" where we would get a chance to try other forms of witnessing. It was good while it lasted, but after no more than four weeks Dave said we should get back to distributing Survivors full-time because he felt it was more likely that America was going to be destroyed soon (and we had to reach people before that happend.
Then there was "Anarchy". You should remember this one well since I remember how it was for you since we were at the same base. Here Dave said that there were no rules, and people were free to do whatever they wanted, literally. People were reluctant at first to try it out since they thought it was a trap (including you). Dave insured us that it was no trap, so most people started focusing on what they really wanted to do. Almost everyone cut down on distributing. It ended when Dave wrote to the group expressing his disappointment that we haven't distributed as much as before, and he with his "suggestion" that we focus on getting out 10,000 books in one week, "Anarchy" ended after only two weeks, and there was no discussion of this happening. We went back to distributing full-time.
Then there was Autonomy where the group was officialy given autonomy from the main group. Members sorted themselves into 2-3 man teams, given assets, and sent out with the idea that we were not going to rely on the group or Dave anymore, but become their own communities making their own choices. The funds we recieved would belong to the autonomos base alone. Communication between bases was to be kept to a minimum so that we would not fall back into group dependence. Like "Anarchy" this never officially ended, but did indeed end.
Finally there was "The split" where the group was officialy given autonomy from the main group. Members sorted themselves into 2-3 man teams, given assets, and sent out with the idea that we were not going to rely on the group or Dave anymore, but become out own communities making our own choices. The funds we recieved would belong to the autonomos base alone. Communication between bases was to be kept to a minimum so that we would not fall back into group dependence. Does this sound familiar? It should because it was almost identical to "autonomy" which was supposed to have been in effect already. Why would there even be a need for the Split if we were already autonomous?
Dave came up with all of these. Each time it was given so that we can "make our own choices", "Learn to hear from God ourselves" and/or "stop depending on Dave for direction". Each time things gradually slipped back into the same old same old that it was before. Sure there might have been minor changes, but in the end it was distributing full time, and making ourselves accountable to Dave. Please really try to think back and examine what your impressions were about these developments before they happened, and than look at how they turned out. I know it's difficult, but please try. Thank you for reading.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
hello
()
Date: February 10, 2007 05:13AM
Hi- I don't know why my last post wasn't put up- is there some kind of error? I agree with Xenophone- there is no autonomy in the community. Keeping seperate financial records is one thing- psychological free thought is quite another. As my last post wasn't put up- I just want to congratulate everyone who left. I am really grateful this thread exists. :D
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 10, 2007 05:35AM
Quote
XenophoneQuote
Fran
For starters, as you all know well by now (but conveniently ignore), the JCs are split up into various autonomous teams, which are spread over several countries and several locations even within the same country. So who is going to stop anyone from surfing the net? Seriously! You guys are truly amazing.
Hi Fran, I find it troubling that you, or any other JC, still thinks that you are in autonomy. For me it's so obvious that the autonomy was just another gimmick. Maybe it would help if I show you how Dave has a pattern of instigating gimmicks. The most obvious reason he does this is because he knows his followers are feeling disillusioned, so he wants to give them a sense that they are free, while still keeping them under his thumb.
When I was in the US, Dave suggested that the base try a new structure to our week where we would distribute only three days a week and then use the other 2-3 days (which would have normally been distributing days) to be "alternative witnessing days" where we would get a chance to try other forms of witnessing. It was good while it lasted, but after no more than four weeks Dave said we should get back to distributing Survivors full-time because he felt it was more likely that America was going to be destroyed soon (and we had to reach people before that happend.
Then there was "Anarchy". You should remember this one well since I remember how it was for you since we were at the same base. Here Dave said that there were no rules, and people were free to do whatever they wanted, literally. People were reluctant at first to try it out since they thought it was a trap (including you). Dave insured us that it was no trap, so most people started focusing on what they really wanted to do. Almost everyone cut down on distributing. It ended when Dave wrote to the group expressing his disappointment that we haven't distributed as much as before, and he with his "suggestion" that we focus on getting out 10,000 books in one week, "Anarchy" ended after only two weeks, and there was no discussion of this happening. We went back to distributing full-time.
Then there was Autonomy where the group was officialy given autonomy from the main group. Members sorted themselves into 2-3 man teams, given assets, and sent out with the idea that we were not going to rely on the group or Dave anymore, but become their own communities making their own choices. The funds we recieved would belong to the autonomos base alone. Communication between bases was to be kept to a minimum so that we would not fall back into group dependence. Like "Anarchy" this never officially ended, but did indeed end.
Finally there was "The split" where the group was officialy given autonomy from the main group. Members sorted themselves into 2-3 man teams, given assets, and sent out with the idea that we were not going to rely on the group or Dave anymore, but become out own communities making our own choices. The funds we recieved would belong to the autonomos base alone. Communication between bases was to be kept to a minimum so that we would not fall back into group dependence. Does this sound familiar? It should because it was almost identical to "autonomy" which was supposed to have been in effect already. Why would there even be a need for the Split if we were already autonomous?
Dave came up with all of these. Each time it was given so that we can "make our own choices", "Learn to hear from God ourselves" and/or "stop depending on Dave for direction". Each time things gradually slipped back into the same old same old that it was before. Sure there might have been minor changes, but in the end it was distributing full time, and making ourselves accountable to Dave. Please really try to think back and examine what your impressions were about these developments before they happened, and than look at how they turned out. I know it's difficult, but please try. Thank you for reading.
Thanks for that Xenophone. That was a really good expose of the various gimmicks Dave practices. It is obvious Dave knows and believes that they are NOT autonomous or able to think for themselves at all, never mind what false claims Fran may make. It is of note that over on the JC forum Dave gets upset at having to tell his followers, and I highlight the term [b:a2fc7f6865]HIS[/b:a2fc7f6865] followers, how to think. I will paste an example here. He is responding to Rick's comments. Mind you Dave is in the process of telling his supposedly "free thinking" followers what to think by priming them on how to respond to Rick. What a dilemma he is in!
Quote
Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
Hmmmm. Now this is one that often worries me. We recently had one member being heavily criticised (publicly) by a lot of other members (even people who were not on the same team as him), and when I pointed out that there was no real grounds for the criticism, people suddenly realised that they had gotten themselves worked up over nothing. And they were able to see the truth in what I was saying. I think it is the job of any good leader to TRY to teach people to think for themselves, and that is what I was trying to do in that situation....
Fran, I have met you. I know you are an intelligent man. I do not believe that you are free and autonomously operating because I also know how Dave works, and because I believe the account of Xenophone that the JC's have not changed at all.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 10, 2007 06:15AM
Quote
JoshQuote
apostateQuote
In the big scheme of thing Josh, does it really matter what an individual "calls" themselves? What difference does a badge make in the end, except to make fellow badge wearers feel more at ease with each other. I think that such things are inconsequential, and as a result I will answer your question in a similar fashion to Gandhi. "I am a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, a Jew, a Siekh..." Being part of something invisible Josh, one does not look for walls of division, only actions of unification.Quote
[i:06c2afd073]Quoting Josh: [/i:06c2afd073]I wasn't asking your religion in order to be divisive. I think knowing what you believe about God would help me form a better picture of where you're comming from. What a person believes about the nature of reality is manifested in how they behave.
My previous answer explained quite clearly the inclusive nature I believe a God of love would have. Inclusive enough to incorporate ALL people on the planet. As I believe in that reality it is manifested in how I behave.Quote
[i:06c2afd073]Quoting Josh: [/i:06c2afd073]Many things the Jesus Christians do make absolutely no sense unless you are first convinced the God exists, is soveriegn, that Jesus is the word of God, and that he is the way to salvation.
Can you explain to me how whipping a volunteer in Africa for sinning against them makes more sense; as it seems to make sense to you? All I see is group think causing people to overstep the line of how we should treat each other.Quote
[i:06c2afd073]Quoting Josh: [/i:06c2afd073]I asked your religion because if you didn't believe some of those things I could see how many of the decisions made could seem perfectly fine to those convinced of the "Christian" reality and seem retarded to someone who had a different understanding of reality.
Do all the people you know who are part of the "Christian" reality see whipping that African volunteer as being "perfectly fine"?Quote
[i:06c2afd073]Quoting Josh: [/i:06c2afd073]Take forsaking all your posetions for example. To most people that'd be a really stupid thing to do. If however you really really believe that God said he'd feed and cloth you if you worked for him, it becomes less of a big deal. What one believes to be real, and what one believes to be not real about God goes a long way to explain why someone acts and reacts the way they do.
I understand that what one person believes about God will explain the way they act. There is a quote which says: [i:06c2afd073]"How can we be loving on earth if we follow a tyrant in heaven".[/i:06c2afd073] The JC God sees it as "perfectly fine" to whip another human being for a perceived indiscression against them. The JC's attribute their actions to obedience to their God. You need to ask yourself whether their understanding of God is the same as yours. Is it?QuoteQuote
apostate
First I would say that Jesus was NOT a "Christian".
[i:06c2afd073]Quoting Josh: [/i:06c2afd073]How can Jesus [b:06c2afd073]Christ[/b:06c2afd073] not be a Christian? That makes me really curious about how you define Christianity.
Jesus was a Jew.QuoteQuote
apostate
Hmm, does it matter if something is not egalitarian to you Josh? Are you a person who believes in a principle of equality amongst humanity? If so how do you respond to the above scripture you quoted. Is the above scripture enough to cause you to turn away from a principle of equality amongst humanity?
[i:06c2afd073]Quoting Josh: [/i:06c2afd073]Well the person with the rod of iron in the scripture I was talking about was Jesus so No I don't believe I am equal with Jesus. I believe that God is soveriegn and can do what he will do without my aproval. It doesn't matter if I like it or not. God is God and I am not. Should a pot argue with the potter about how it is made? That doesn't mean I accept everyone who claims authority over me as really being from God, but it doesn't mean that I reject the possibility out of hand either.
Are you saying that we do not need to treat other humans equally? That was my question.Quote
[i:06c2afd073]Quoting Josh: [/i:06c2afd073]How about you? Do you think that God has the right to, and do you think he ever would set up one person in authority over another. (I'm not talking about Dave McKay here, I'm speaking hypothetically)
Lets stick to the simple example in front of us with the whipping of the African volunteer for some sin committed. Why get into hypotheticals when we have an actual event to discuss. Do you think God set that scenario up by putting an "authority", who happened to be a JC, over that person? Do you think the person using the whip on that African's back was welding the whip FOR God? It's a simple question.Quote
apostate
Being happy and excited about what one does is all well and good, but it is possible to be happy and excited and in error.
[i:06c2afd073]Quoting Josh: [/i:06c2afd073]You're right. I was just pointing out they seemed to be enjoying their time in the Jesus Christians (as opposed to you guys who did not) without commenting on the correctness of their theology.
I would emphasise the word "seemed". I spent many years in the JC's and I know there is discontent in there, but they are caught up with the presentation.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Gladitzover
()
Date: February 10, 2007 07:43AM
Quote
XenophoneQuote
GladitzoverQuote
From what I can tell the members of the Jesus Christians seem quite happy where they're at and quite excited about the work they're doing.
As a JC member, I only ONCE spoke to another member about how I really felt about the group. I admitted that i sometimes felt like leaving...the other person said that they often did too. It was a rare moment of honesty. The unfortunate thing was that the other member then "turned me in" and my comments were thrown back in my face in a grievance meeting.
For me I eventually realised how disfunctional the group was. I remember feeling guilt when I witnessed to potentials and told them how the community was an exciting/dynamic place to grow in love and learn to hear God's voice. I felt guilt because deep down I knew that life in the community really wasn't like that.
I meant to say that JCs are not often honest with EACHOTHER about how they really feel about things in the group. That being the case, they aren't likely to be very open about the realities with "outsiders".
Either Apostate or Cultmalleous said that it's all in the presentation for them. I think that's a true statement.
Also Xenphone, thanks for the nice summary of the "gimmicks".
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Xenophone
()
Date: February 10, 2007 04:13PM
Quote
hello
Hi- I don't know why my last post wasn't put up- is there some kind of error? I agree with Xenophone- there is no autonomy in the community. Keeping seperate financial records is one thing- psychological free thought is quite another. As my last post wasn't put up- I just want to congratulate everyone who left. I am really grateful this thread exists. :D
Hello, hello. Even before autonomy each base kept seperate financial records. I remember noticing that the one of the only changes with autonomy is that we no longer were obligated to write a report each day and send it out to Dave, instead we only had to a report once a week. HOWEVER even then the leader of the base ended up communicating with Dave more regularly, sometimes even more so thanks to yahoo messenger. Also Dave did silently reserve the right to keep tabs on other people's finances.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
free of DM
()
Date: February 10, 2007 09:23PM
Quote
Gladitzover
[
As a JC member, I only ONCE spoke to another member about how I really felt about the group. I admitted that i sometimes felt like leaving...the other person said that they often did too. It was a rare moment of honesty. The unfortunate thing was that the other member then "turned me in" and my comments were thrown back in my face in a grievance meeting.
".[/quote]
Yep grilled for feeleing like leaving a few times. Grievances for wanting to leave and bloking it out later becoz the 'devil' mght temp t me .
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.