It is difficult to ignore the terrible destruction McKay has wrought and the many families he has hurt, including his own.

IMO--McKay is an evil and deeply disturbed man, with a seemingly insatiable ego, often fed at the expense of his followers.

And he has demonstrated no remorse nor concern for the harm he has caused on this thread or wherever else he posts statements through the Internet.

Frankly, McKay seems to be devoid of any meaningful conscience.

Quote
Xenophone
I don't find Josh suspicious. It's obvious that he has a bias towards the JCs, but that is natural IMO. It doesn't mean that he's made up his mind.

Quote
hello
I agree with Xenophone. Josh isn't an internet troll.

Thank you guys. I try pretty hard to be at the very least civil to everyone I talk to. I do this because I believe God loves all of us very much and I try not to be rude to someone that God loves. So I was disapointed to be labeled a troll for trying to cause arguments, because really that is the opposite of what I am trying to do.

Quote
rrmoderator
It is difficult to ignore the terrible destruction McKay has wrought and the many families he has hurt, including his own.

IMO--McKay is an evil and deeply disturbed man, with a seemingly insatiable ego, often fed at the expense of his followers.

And he has demonstrated no remorse nor concern for the harm he has caused on this thread or wherever else he posts statements through the Internet.

Frankly, McKay seems to be devoid of any meaningful conscience.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you. I'm trying to look at this from someone elses perspective, so please don't take this the wrong way. Can you see how that statement could be seen by members of the Jesus Christians as you trying to start arguments with them?

As for my own experience and attitude towards the group. I have only spoken to most of them over their forum, but have met a few of them in person so take my impression of the group and its members for what it's worth. Everyone has always been very nice to me. I find their take on theology interesting and challenging. Where I do not have the same understanding of scripture they do I have had open discussions with them where I was allowed to explain the reasons for my position and I at least felt like they were listening to me and considering my points.

That is why I seem like I have a positive impression of the group, because I do because they have always been nice to me. I didn't come here to give you my positive impressions of the Jesus Christians, but my motivation has been brought up several times now so I figured I should address it.

So for the rest of the ex-members do you guys still subscribe to theological beliefs similar to what you had while you were in the Jesus Christians? Am I right in my understanding that the reason most of you left the group was because you felt Dave McKay was too controlling or were there other reasons?

Quote
rrmoderator
It is difficult to ignore the terrible destruction McKay has wrought and the many families he has hurt, including his own.

IMO--McKay is an evil and deeply disturbed man, with a seemingly insatiable ego, often fed at the expense of his followers.

And he has demonstrated no remorse nor concern for the harm he has caused on this thread or wherever else he posts statements through the Internet.

Frankly, McKay seems to be devoid of any meaningful conscience.

Given the number of complaints I have heard about this group, I can understand your response here. However I do think that the dialogue between Cultmalleus, Apostate, Xenophone with Fran, Josh and others here is a positive thing.

Quote
Josh

Quote
rrmoderator
apostate:

Josh is an "Internet troll" and not here with any other meaningful purpose.

He is attempting to start arguments in an effort to subvert this thread.

Look back on his posts.

He reapeatedly attempts to shift the focus away from the topic.

I believe I have always tried to steer the discussion back onto topic. If you'll look back on my last post you'll see I even say...getting back to the topic of the thread in an effort to stop answering questions about my own beliefs and go back to talking about why ex-members left the Jesus Christians. But this is your forum and you decide what is on topic and what isn't. Could you explain to me the topic of this thread so I could better stick to it?

Thanks for the input Rick. I may have misrepresented Josh re: his take on whether those outside of Christianity could be considered "sons of god", and for that I apologised. Josh had some difficulty with my responses to some of his questions which I thought was understandable given that he was responding from his frame of reference and me from mine.

I think the thread has shifted back on topic now.

Josh, I have answered your question as to why I think some ex members left the JC's and why some continue to remain. You still have provided no feedback on that response as yet. I would be interested in your thoughts about that.

I will paste it again restating my answer for the third time.

I think the different perspectives result from a definite power imbalance between the one claiming "divine authority" along with those that accept such a claim, and those who do not. If one accepts that exercising power from a "top down" position is the best way to go then that belief will naturally generate a different perspective to those who favour a "bottom up" position and way of operating. Those coming from a "top down" position will deem their actions benevolent and for the "good" of those beneath, while those beneath will view such actions as paternalistic and disconnected from reality. Those coming from a "bottom up" position may see their actions as being based upon concepts of equality, while the one in a position of power deem such actions as being the work of "rebels". It is a common political pattern which repeats itself endlessly. For myself I operate froma "bottom up" frame of reference and am prepared to be branded rebel as a result.

As mentioned earlier Josh, I think it comes down to what a person is prepared to accept in this life. If a person has lower standards of equality and sees that it is justifiable to use "top down" "end justifies the means" approaches towards others then such people will see it as working well for them. Those who do not will not.

For what it's worth, I also think that Josh is an Internet Troll and/or Apologist. His line of questioning is naive to the point of being robotic. His motives seem clear - he intends to undermine the thoughts, beliefs and experiences of ex-members. If Josh can't accept the testimonies here, then, perhaps, he needs to experience some of his own by joining the JCs (which I suspect is a very near thing).

Just in case you missed ex member previous statted reasons for leaving Josh, as you are the not the first to ask. I will repaste them here.

[b:805cc2bba0] 1. David teaches and utilises deception (see past discussions about thefts and welfare fraud)

2. David teaches his group to IGNORE the teachings of Jesus in favour of his own interpretations (see Killers for Jesus thread where Dave justifies killing people when circumstances dictate)

3. David teaches his followers to run roughshod over the top of the feelings and concerns of family members by teaching them that they no longer have to have any contact with family members unless they accept JC doctrines of the group having final say on who comes in to there house.

4. David uses emotional blackmail on members families, ex members, and his own children by stating that they will not be permitted to see loved ones unless they comply with his dictates.

5. David teaches his members that it is OK to whip people for sins they have committed against his group (see discussion about the Kenyan volunteer they whipped on their "Quaker" community)

6. David teaches his members that there is no force involved in sexual relations between a child and an adult paedophile (see discussions on his forum under the "sex thread")

7. David teaches that third world women are intrinsically bad because their lust and wantoness for western materialism motivated them to seduce their husbands away from Jesus

8. David teaches that he is an "annointed apostle" without which all would be led astray.

9. David has reversed his original "Churchianity VS Christianity" teachings by teaching the above "annointed apostle" doctrine as it negates previous teachings about each member having a direct connection to God without the need of hiearchial structures.

10. David directed his community to "break" one of his children, while ignoring the emotional crisis the son was experiencing.

11. David has created an atmosphere of peer pressure for males to receive vascetomies.

12. David teaches that biblical passages related to "living sacrifices" and "He who has two should give to those who have none" relate to body parts.

13. David undermines the goals of families by covertly meeting with children, legally minors, to sow seeds of doubt in their minds about their parents motivations. The end result is that the family is ripped asunder, resulting in them experiencing loss and grief.

14. David takes people to court for money if they criticise him

15. David teaches his members that begging for donations on the street in order to meet a strict distribution quota is not working for money. In reality his has become the like thief master in Oliver Twist teachings the kids how to rob passerbys.

16. David falsely claims to have "forsaken all", while having NEVER relinquished his position of authority within the JC's or having ever worked as an equal in a community. He also happily lives in government flat provided by Australian welfare while members live in vans.

17. David teaches that manipulation is good, and proves the point by pretending to be a concerned mother writing to cult busting groups about her son who had been sucked into his group (see discussion about "Anita Foster").

18. David teaches that ex members have fallen away from God, because they disagree with his teachings.



Well that should do for starters. The list really seems to go on and on and on. But, I think there a few there, and I am only one member. I am sure the others have more.


Excellent list Apostate

19. David teaches that Sincerity is the same as Faith.

20. David teaches others to manipulate situations for the benefit of the group. He claims that manipulation is just good management.

21. David teaches that the end justiifies the means.

22. David promotes double standards,insisting that recruits forsake all private property. The group has just purchased land they are building on in Kenya, in his daughter's name. (ic website)

23. David does not admit to new recruits that most of his teachings are based on Berg's.

24. David promotes double standards by holding other people accountable for their actions and manipulating situations where he might be held accountable himself.

25 David teaches that it is permissible to have harmless grieving relatives arrested to get them out of the way, rather than lose a potential recruit.

26. David teaches that having a conscience is bad.

27. David teaches that the end of the world is coming soon. This orobablty coincides with Family teaching.

28. David, unlike inspiritional leaders, has a very bad temper.

29. David teaches recruits to tell lies.

30. David vets communication.

31. David demands frequent and intrusive reports.

32. David expels/ isolates recruits from group when they are 'out of the spirit' / weak leaving them fearful for their salvation, having been convinced there is none outside the group.

33. David gets the best food for himself

34. David insists that ex members do not take literature out of the group when they leave

35. David teaches others that he has the "gift of spiritual discernment", even writing in books boastfully that his young disciples are "amazed" by it.

36. If Dave cannot get a false accusation to stick he accuses the person of thinking about the act "subconsciously", telling his followers to trust his "gift of discernment" in the matter. [/b:805cc2bba0]

Well, Josh does seem very naive at best, or at worst an apologist attempting to undermine this thread and essentially serve McKay's interests.

But since some here believe he deserves a change at dialog, OK, but I remain skeptical.

Fran has been flaming lately, though per the rules her rants have not been approved.

1. David recruits vulnerable people that should've received independent counselling first- see Barry testimony.
2. David freely admits to halluncinations of demons- see Dreams thread. Rather than seek help for this- he believes it is evidence of his role as " Annointed One."
3. David uses derogatory terms to describe people- such as "systemites" and "deadwood"- he encourages his disciples to do the same.
Josh- people with true spirituality do not behave in this way.

Hello Josh,

Gosh, what a lot of posts in the last few days. Apostate posted a list earlier and a few of us added to it. I was about to post it, but see that Apostate has posted it again today (Thanks Apostate) . I suggest you read it, as it may assist you in your mission to establish the reaons you are looking for. On the other hand , you may have read them all. If so, you appear to be trying to reduce them to the 2 you mentioned here..

Quote
Josh

Quote


Anyway back to the subject of this thread....
Let me see if I can sum up why you don't like the Jesus Christians. Let me know if I'm misrepresenting you.
1. You think Dave McKay is very bossy and controlling.
2. You do not share the religious beliefs of the group.
Reguardless of number 1 (The opinion I think you share with most ex-members on this board and what current members say is not true.) I can see why you'd leave a group simply because of number 2. I'm not saying anything about the accuracy of your religious beliefs or the JCs religious beliefs, I can just see how working with a group that is very dedicated to a theology you don't believe in could be hard to deal with. I know if I was working with a group that was very dedicated to spreading Hinduism I'd have a hard time spreading Hinduism reguardless of [b:a1584e3ff7]how nice or how big of a jerk the leader was[/b:a1584e3ff7].

Attempting to reduce the lengthy list of criticisms (posted above again by apostate) to the 2 reasons you proffer, will not help you or anyone, to comprehend this extremely complex situation. It is interesting that Dave often does just that. Reduces options eg you [i:a1584e3ff7] either work for God or work for money[/i:a1584e3ff7]. Reducing the options or categories only serves to manipulate and restrict your choices. Dave can not tolerate the thought that someone may work for neither. He makes very crude attempts to categorise the entire population of the planet in this way. Incredible! Dave is usually unswervingly sure he is right, even when he is blatantly wrong eg He was very sure that apostate was Tony but later on became very sure that Apostate is a tyoe of morph!.
He was convinced that Matilda was Leisel, then decided that Matilda was Bernie. He is wrong and wrong again but he takes his chances on a guess and wont be swayed, despite owing them an apology. A number of people who have had negative experiences in/with the JC's, read this board and although they do not post here, they have contributed to the list of concerns. Some ex members here are walk aways and some were pushed out. All are better off spiritually and in every way. Josh, I have no idea whether you are a friend of the JC's, a potential or even whether you are the voice of the collective trying to gain a better insight of itself. Whatever the case, take time and care with your choices.

I have highlighted part of your post. I have not heard leaders described like that on this thread before, but can understand the point. I do think you will find that there is variety of beliefs here and the objections are mainly about DM's behaviour. I recommend you read the list.

Dear Josh,

To return to a question you asked me (some pages back now...!), about Christ wielding a "Iron Scepter" in his future dominion. I am not a "peace activist" in any sense of the word, and probably remain unfashionably "traditional" in my interpretation of the scriptures (e.g. neither "male" or "females" pronouns are actually adequate to describe God, however I persist with the "male" terminology that is traditionally associated with the older scriptural translations), howbeit:

IMO...an omniprescent, all-knowing God has the right and the authority to wield an "iron scepter" over those he rules.....however as I am not God (Well, last time I looked I wasn't anyway but...hey get back to me on that!!) in any future dominion of God over the earth, being only mortal, (...and brazenly assuming I am found worthy to be part of the "administration" therein...it's really not my place to say whether or not I actually would be), its unlikely that I personally be wielding an "iron scepter" of any description....

I imagine that the future Kingdom of God will be more akin to Tolstoys' management of the "serfs" on his estate. While I think Tolstoy always retained "legal ownership" of his property and it's "chattels" (the landless peasantry) he largely "collectivized" the whole show, built schools and medical centers and encouraged those on his property to become educated, emancipated and to "advance" themselves, as they saw fit.

That's the "scepter" I anticipate "wielding" in any future Kingdom of God on earth, while at the same time, I acknowledge that a Sovereign God is in a position to "rain down fire" on the faithless and so on and so forth, owing to his far more accurate and discerning judgement. When I have the mercy of God, I’ll have the right to judge with the severity of God…….I have neither at the moment.

I think you’ll see that David McKay basically assumes a Christian “tyranny” over an unrepentant world with himself playing a senior role somewhere. It’s an image I am a little comfortable with (really David is unlucky that he was born several hundred years too late….he would have international recognition and kudos galore in the times of the Spanish Inquistion!)

No less an illuminary than David himself told me once (quoting his old high school sports coach) that “You can judge a man’s character, by what they do when they know they can get away with it”……the litmus test for the Jesus Christians is how they treat their former members, (who obviously will no longer be coming “on board”)….thats’ how you can judge the “depth” of their “Christian love”….they can “get away” with calling us what they want and treating us as they wish……and in so doing they tell you all you need to know about the “spirit” they operate under.

I think its more than that I (or others here might) simple disagree with David “personal opinion” and current members of the JC’s do not…..(clashing personalities)…..from my reading of scripture, David is frankly “apostate” in many (not all of course, but many) of his teachings. The “fruits” of his teaching bear me out, in how you see the Jesus Christians behave towards ex-members….how they procure current members….and in their relationship with David himself.