Hello LexiSmiles,

So you left after the trial week with your money intact. Now that is a reason to smile!

Who did you spend the week with?

Hello.

All I know there was four guys and one woman.


It was a few years ago now and I really just chalked it up to a stupid moment on my part. It was shocking that when I read some of what people were writing that what happened came flooding back to me.
It has actually made me emotionally that I realise how stupid I was to find myself getting myself roped into such a group.
Are you currently a member of that group?

Quote
matilda
If Josh has no interest in joining, nor any involvement with the group, then his preoccupation is bound to raise a few bushey eyebrows here. Perhaps its Mel Gibson scouting for some new film idea?

Ha ha. No I'm not Mel Gibson or in the employ thereof.

I can see how it seemed like I had a preoccupation with the JCs to you guys since I just showed up here with a load of questions. I've pretty much run out of questions now though since I think I got my answers more or less as to what you guys disagree with and some of the differences between you guys and the current members.

My interest in the Jesus Christians really has to do with the way they challenge my own Christianity. Like I said before I don't agree with them 100% on how they understand scritpure, but I don't agree with any religious group 100% however I still find I'm able to learn a lot from them. I would think the ex-members of this forum should be able to relate to me in this. You guys were obviously impressed enough with the JCs theology to join them at one point. Reguardless of how you feel about Dave (I'm not trying to be dismissive of how serious the problems are you have with him. They have obviously affected everyone involved a great deal) I hope you guys have been able to hold onto the good from the JCs even while you reject the things that caused problems for you.

Quote
Jack Oskar Larm
It's fine to fire off questions as they pop into your head, but it seems that there is a very specific theme or motive for most of them.

Yes there have been some themes, it was first me trying to see the differences between members and ex-members. Then me clarifying for myself if the ex-members problems with the group was mostly limited to Dave or if they had a problem with the group as a whole and with its theology. Now it's tying up loose ends as I have gotten my questions answered for the most part.

Quote
Jack Oskar Larm
I don't think life goes better if you always give the benefit of the doubt, especially when the evidence is so clear cut. Getting along with people is admirable. Many people in abusive relationships adhere to this notion hoping - praying - that things will eventually turn out for the best. I wonder how many of the 6 million Jews that were slaughtered by the Nazis thought this way. I suppose we'll never really know...

Ok. Well I'm happier when I choose not to be offended over every little thing. I like this way better, but go with whatever works for you I guess. Also people not getting a 100% accurate picture of me over an internet forum is aways off of murdering 6 million Jews so I'm not sure if your analagy holds.

Quote
apostate
Do any of my comments give the impression to you that I am attacking ANY group or religion?

Your comments give me the impression (and this is just my impression so take it for what it's worth) you very much dislike any religious group that is very serious and specific about their beliefs. That is mostly based on how you disliked the fact I believed God was male and held my particular religious figures in higher esteem than other peoples religious figures. (Two beliefs common to almost every religion on earth) and how you see any form of proselytising as being destructive.

I wouldn't classify most of what you've written to me as "attacking". I can see how your saying "Count me in" to Dogmother saying "I want to dismatle the JCs" could be considered as you being willing to "attack" them. I don't mean physically but trying to dismantle a group that at the moment doesn't want to be dismantled seems pretty close to the definition of attacking in a non-physical sense. I'm not sure why that would bother you though. If the JCs are as bad as you guys say, why do you care if they see you as trying to attack them?

Josh:

At best you seem almost hopelessly naive and/or perhaps stupid.

Otherwise, it seems that you came here with your mind made up and that your questions were devised to ultimately reinforce your minset and/or defend Dave McKay and his followers.

McKay and his group have caused enormous pain to individuals and families, your remarks largely ignore this.

Denial can be a very powerful emotion.

Quote
Josh

Quote
matilda
If Josh has no interest in joining, nor any involvement with the group, then his preoccupation is bound to raise a few bushey eyebrows here. Perhaps its Mel Gibson scouting for some new film idea?

Ha ha. No I'm not Mel Gibson or in the employ thereof.

I can see how it seemed like I had a preoccupation with the JCs to you guys since I just showed up here with a load of questions. I've pretty much run out of questions now though since I think I got my answers more or less as to what you guys disagree with and some of the differences between you guys and the current members.

Josh,

I would hold off reaching any conclusions on the differences between 'you guys' and current members. You have had a couple of responses from over here and you may have ignored many of the issues that concern others.

Dave has made some effort to use your [i:453e4bdc5c]answers[/i:453e4bdc5c] to safeguard his future domination of the group, attempting to show that the criticisms levelled at himself would be levelled at others if/ when he retires/ is retired. Have you asked him why he did that, why he described you as 'coaxing', then draws totally bizarre and illogical conclusions?

Who is impressed with the nasty way in which Dave deals with questions and critics (eg the publication of communication between a member and his family on the JC forum ) ?

Do these comments raise alarm bells for you? [i:453e4bdc5c]'I can recall the mental angush I went through within the group as I struggled with some of their stuff, and then afterwards when I was discarded as "dead wood", to coin their phraseology. I can recall the struggles my mind went through as I came to accept reality. Such things can be literally physically painful.

It is true that there are no locks on the door of his community, but imagine the scenario of a member who is threatened with expulsion in a developing country where he or she gets to take nothing with them. There is no duty of care in these incidents. People are left to fend for themselves. Dave at these times will work to break up marraiges if one members has "backslidden" into rebellion. He will do this by offering accomodation and support to the one he sees as continuing to be faithful to him. Children become community property with parents being expected to conform with community guidleines on how they should be raised and disciplined. (Apostate) '[/i:453e4bdc5c]

The media articles?
[www.culteducation.com]

The baffling amount of negative press coverage Dave has managed to procure, considering the tiny size of the [i:453e4bdc5c]community? [/i:453e4bdc5c]. Video example here [www.myfoxla.com]

Once you get through everything here, some more questions may pop up.

Quote
rrmoderator
Josh:

At best you seem almost hopelessly naive and/or perhaps stupid.

Otherwise, it seems that you came here with your mind made up and that your questions were devised to ultimately reinforce your minset and/or defend Dave McKay and his followers.

McKay and his group have caused enormous pain to individuals and families, your remarks largely ignore this.

Denial can be a very powerful emotion.

What do you guys expect of me? What I came here for was just a little bit of insight into the personalities of ex-members. I didn't come here to join in the Rick Ross vs JCs internet fight and so, you're right, I never really commented with my thoughts about the whole Dave sucks thing.

Do you want my perspective? Here's why I don't seem overly concerned about the problems you have with Dave. What we're talking about here is a guy who has a debateable amount of control over about 30 people on earth. The only control he has over anyone is control they have voluntarily given him. There are so many organizations that abuse their non-voluntary authority in this country and all over the world that, yes, I do have a hard time getting very upset about how someone "manipulates" people who voluntarily place themselves under his authority and then stay once they realize they don't like where they're at.

If I was going to spend hours of my day typing about how much I hate something it would be about something that abuses its authority over me from which I have no option of escape. Like say the Federal Government that seizes nearly a plurality of my income at gunpoint, or how my buddy can only half joke about the government raiding his home because he likes to collect guns, or the crabby building inspector and this counties overly restrictive building codes.

It has been said that once devoid of all your possetions then you are more or less forced to remain in the group. I personally think this is not true. I think as long as you are following God you won't be in need of any necessity. I think that because I believe that there really is a God. He really said that if you seek first the kingdom then you'll be fed and clothed. And I believe he has the magical powers to back that statement up. That probably sounds stupid to most people, but it's my religious belief and it was so before I ever heard there was anyone called the Jesus Christians. If you don't share that belief then by all means don't join any group where you must give away all your stuff.

I guess what I'm saying is Dave may or may not suck. That is not something I care to debate with anyone and is really of no interest to me unless I was going to join the JCs. If someone is thinking about joining, they can come here to hear from you guys and can go to the JCs webpage to hear from them. It is not my job to babysit everyone on earth to tell them which religious groups they should or should not join of their own free will.

But the group does have an interesting theology that people can at least learn something from if they find it objectionable to completely adopt. All I'm saying is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm intentionally not defining what was the baby or what was the bath water. That's for everyone to decide for themselves. Is it really reasonable to believe there isn't a single good insight the JCs have? How is it objectionable if I say to you take what is good leave what isn't?

apostate wrote:
Do any of my comments give the impression to you that I am attacking ANY group or religion?

Josh wrote:

Quote

Your comments give me the impression (and this is just my impression so take it for what it's worth) you very much dislike any religious group that is very serious and specific about their beliefs. That is mostly based on how you disliked the fact I believed God was male and held my particular religious figures in higher esteem than other peoples religious figures. (Two beliefs common to almost every religion on earth) and how you see any form of proselytising as being destructive.

Adherants of any religion who hold their god in higher esteem than other people is bound to generate strife and discord. I would also apply the same judgement to the irreligious, politicians, scientists, etc. It is a reality of life that people do at times choose not to see out of their own skin to how they are impacting on those around them. This is the context of which I spoke. You are of course free to promote your male Christian God as being better and superior to the gods of the other billions of people with which you share this planet. I only ask, does it really matter and is it truly beneficial to do so?

Josh wrote:

Quote

I wouldn't classify most of what you've written to me as "attacking". I can see how your saying "Count me in" to Dogmother saying "I want to dismatle the JCs" could be considered as you being willing to "attack" them. I don't mean physically but trying to dismantle a group that at the moment doesn't want to be dismantled seems pretty close to the definition of attacking in a non-physical sense. I'm not sure why that would bother you though. If the JCs are as bad as you guys say, why do you care if they see you as trying to attack them?

"Count me in" was my response to the get together of ex members. If you wish to extend that to me being "willing" to "attack" the JC's that would be a misrepresentation.

Thank you for restating that you do not consider anything I have said to you to be attacking the JC's. Why do I harp on about this point... because Dave is in your other ear telling you I am. Why do I care... because truth is important to me.

What is experiental to me and others on this thread appears to be little more than an object of curiosity to you. I dare say that none of what ex members have said on this site will be of any real concern to you until you have similar events climb over your back fence... until then it will be difficult for you to empathise with any claims here. That is also another reality of life; people only get involved to help and support others who have experienced what they have experienced. A form of altruistic selfishness.

Josh:

You said,

Quote

I didn't come here to join in the Rick Ross vs JCs internet fight

There is no "fight" per se here.

People began a thread or two here (there are hundreds within this message board) about their experiences with the JCs.

Please understand that there are 27,000 posts at this board and interest in Dave McKay and his group represents only a very small fraction of the board activity and contents.

In fact, McKay and his followers came here in an attempt to attack those victimized by the group who were sharing information about their experiences.

You say,

Quote

The only control [Dave McKay] has over anyone is control they have voluntarily given him.

Here you have ignored the personal accounts of families and past members who have taken the time here to detail how McKay gains and maintains undue influence over his followers.

You say,

Quote

Dave may or may not suck. That is not something I care to debate with anyone and is really of no interest to me.

If you don't wish to discuss or examine the influence of Dave McKay over his followers, why bother posting here? As you must know the core focus of the threads regarding the so-called "Jesus Christians" is McKay's control over the group and how he runs it.

You say,

Quote

the group does have an interesting theology that people can at least learn something from...All I'm saying is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm intentionally not defining what was the baby or what was the bath water.

You are intentionlly ignoring the information shared here by former members and famlies. That is, the "Jesus Christians" group is personality-driven and totalitarian, just like other groups called "cults." And the personality that animates it causing concern is not "Jesus," but rather Dave McKay, as can be seen by his undue influence and how his idiosyncratic beliefs have contributed to the group's "interesting theology."

Take McKay away from the grooup and what you have left is little more than as you say "bathwater" or a residue that would in time evaporate. McKay is the "baby," which is to say the real focus of the group and the key to understanding its practices, dynamics and behavior.

Dear Josh,

It's a relief to hear that you are not intending to join the JC's. That wasn't always clear from your postings As I commented earlier, ( and which you may remember) I recommended that you read their literature and form your own views....certainly there are a number of observations therein about wider issues that are worth serious consideration. As I also said earlier, I believe that once they get much beyond their immediate commentaries on the scriptures, you’ll run into serious deceit. (i.e. Theres a "sheep - skin" thickness of scriptural commentary and all the rest is just "ravenous wolf). ....but I agree with you, take the little good that there is and leave the rest.

Its quite true that “All things work to the good of those who believe in Christ Jesus”….owing to my time in the Jesus Christians, I’ve developed far more insight into the Christian scriptures than I ever had, and have had some very special experiences that I consider to have been encounters with Gods’ providence…. and I’ve now also had the privilege of, in some small way, being able to make the acquaintance of a few of the wonderful people who constitute the ex-members of the Jesus Christians.

However just as a “Wise man learns from experience and a WISER man learns from the experiences of others”……I couldn’t recommend that someone deliberately injure themselves to better “experience” God somehow working to the good in those circumstances, and thus neither could I recommend anyone “experimenting” with the Jesus Christians, to see what “good” God could bring out of that……listening to what the overwhelming majority of good folk who have directly experienced what the Jesus Christians have had to offer, have thought of it all, would now perhaps be enough for me if I could have my time again. (…there were of course very few “ex-members” at the time I joined and certainly no “alternative” sources of information such as this forum.. )

While Gods’ Spirit empowers us to battle with “principalities and powers” if I choose to throw away my “breast-plate” of righteousness by learning to always do someone else’s biding, irrespective of the issues involved and if I lose my own “shield” of faith, as I come more and more to simply rely on the opinions of those more “politically powerful” than me…then I’m going to be spiritually injured.

In addition to the loss of possession and income people experience in the Jesus Christians, you neglected to mention the deliberate isolation of members, (and if possible estrangement,), from other non-members such as their immediate family and friends. The entire “universe” is reduced to the opinions of that little group of 30 or so people you speak of……..that makes independent thought and action on behalf of the God and the principles you originally wanted to be following, a lot more difficult than simply being in a position of independently having “no possessions”, that you intimate……

You should of course remember that David has had hundreds through his doors, (by the Grace of God we are thankful that a mere 30 remain), hence the impact of the Jesus Christians is actually far more severe than the figures you have been presented with. (“We are a just small group people living out our ideals” is a sales pitch they have used for over two decades now….) It’s not simply “dislike” for David that motivates people to post here, (as the JesusChristians persistently wheedle)….it’s a concern for the truth.

Josh,

It is not the beliefs of the Jesus Christians that cause such great concern. It is not their theology or personal faith. There is no persecution of their beliefs or of your faith. You seem to be circling Apostate with that accusation, unwittingly maybe? Dave has a history of trying to peddle that myth and it is usually at times when his actions are open to criticism. In generating the myth, Dave generates FEAR against non members. In this case, I suspect that he is gererating some fear against Apostate. It has happened before. **
It is not Dave's creed or lack of it that is being called into question and you will have noticed that Dave does not publish any defining creed for his group. It is his actions. It is the tactics he employs that are reprehensible.