"David has posted his responses to all of my comments, but avoids one persistent question I ask. Here is his response. Assess it for yourself. Personally I think it's demented.

[welikejesus.com]

He still does not reply to this persistent question from me, and I challenge him to respond.

Did a Quaker woman give you a substantial amount of money? What Quaker moneys have gone into supporting your Kenya outpost? Have you used that outpost to sell books not for the Quakers, but for the Jesus Christians"

"...in summary, we believe that it is important to understand that there is a kingdom that is higher than the religious and political establishment, and that the servants of that kingdom are going to be persecuted and hated by the loyal followers of the establishment. Followers of the establishment ("establishmentarians") will condemn virtually every new movement, but especially if it is critical of the prevailing system (i.e. "disestablishmentarian). This doctrine of the establishment, which David Lowe (and some Quakers who are supporting him) preach is called "anti-disestablishmentarianism". "

Demented is right. DM displays childishly simplistic thinking, and makes a lot of generalizations. Anybody that is anti-JCs is a pro-Establishment Systemite? Simple as that, huh? How much of a black-and white, us-and-them world do you live in David? What color is the sky on your planet? Or is everything on your planet in (gasp) black and white?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2007 11:49AM by zeuszor.

You are a flaming idiot, Casey. No excuse will restore any shred of respect I had for you after this fabulously retarded tripe. I never said it was only for the apostles. No one here ever said it was only for the apostles. I (as opposed to some) said “it makes sense considering the circumstances”. I even took the time to explain this to you. There is a world of difference between the two statements. I’ll leave it to you to retrace your steps in this thread and find out where you screwed up.


[www.theologyweb.com]

Zangetsu calls here Casey stupid, retarded, an idiot. A FLAMING idiot. After this exchange, I'll bet, Casey sat for hours rocking back and forth, his index finger between his lips, finger moving up and down, repeating "b,b,b,b,b,b"....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2007 03:12PM by zeuszor.

"anti-disestablishmentarianism"

When I was at school in the 60's, this was the word we said was the longest word in the English language. I'm sure there are longer ones now, but it was a school game to know it and to know how to spell it. I don't think any of us ever thought anyone would actually use it, unless they wanted to show off.

I never thought I'd live to see the day when someone actually used it, let alone to refer to me! Funny eh? Thanks again for the kudos, David, can't wait to tell the "old chums"........

Thanks for those theology forum links zeuszor. Will enjoy reading them. How enlightening.

I don't quite get the bit about a post being deleted from the ex-COG forum. If it's gone, we can't see it. Did you capture it?

I wish that poster there would reply to David's question "Why do you ask?" re Tyrannus!

"Once the "cult" word comes up there is no further room for discussion in the minds of the people throwing it around."

Brings a whole new meaning to 'C-bomb"!

Quote
Blackhat
"anti-disestablishmentarianism"

When I was at school in the 60's, this was the word we said was the longest word in the English language. I'm sure there are longer ones now, but it was a school game to know it and to know how to spell it. I don't think any of us ever thought anyone would actually use it, unless they wanted to show off.

I never thought I'd live to see the day when someone actually used it, let alone to refer to me! Funny eh? Thanks again for the kudos, David, can't wait to tell the "old chums"........

Thanks for those theology forum links zeuszor. Will enjoy reading them. How enlightening.

I don't quite get the bit about a post being deleted from the ex-COG forum. If it's gone, we can't see it. Did you capture it?

I wish that poster there would reply to David's question "Why do you ask?" re Tyrannus!

You are welcome for the links.

Those two must really not be so bright. One does not have to be a "theologian" to be able to discern that the JC teaching is lacking completely in basic principles of context or balance as regards its approach to interpreting the Scriptures. If you apply one iota of logic to JC teaching, it all just falls apart. My favorite part of the theologyweb discussion was where the guy was asking, "What if everybody tried to live like the JCs?" Good points.

"What if everybody tried to live like the JCs?"

I love those guys, their questions are so succinct. You are right about DM trying to play with people way out of his league.

I guess nobody would work or contribute to the economy, which would collapse (disestablishmentarianism). Then everybody would try to live off everybody else's garbage, until it all ran out. Sounds like a post-apocalyptic world. Unless, of course, they try to breed rabbits, wasting the grain left over from when farmers used to farm. Millions of people around the world trying to sell copies of a book for $2 to cover costs, but no printing companies, no money. And everyone would already have the book. So they could all use it to wipe their own arses before disappearing up them......

"With regard to so many of our critics at the RR forum, includin the big R himself, one of their most fundamental arguments against any group is that they get "bad press". This may not necessarily reflect a pro-establishment bias, but it certainly does seem to indicate a pro-media bias, i.e. "If I read it in the newspaper, it must be true." "

This is an interesting point, David. "Bad press". What does it mean? If the Press of the world give Bad Press to a deserving cause, inevitably you will find people writing blogs, sending letters to the press, and publishing in alternative media their arguments against what the mainstream press has been saying. Deserving underdogs find people to champion their causes.

There is a wealth of good people who dedicate their lives to championing those who unjustly get Bad Press. They write articles and publish analysis of how these deserving people got Bad Press because of establishment bias. They are those who champion the under-dog. And some of them are Quakers. That is why thinking people read alternative press, and search for supporters and groups who support causes they see as worthy.

So there are two types of "Bad Press."

1. The kind that gets mainstream media-mogul bad press.

2. The kind who, when this happens, fail to find a ground-swell of people who percieve an injustice, despite all their frantic and obsessive internet and publicity-seeking activity.

Something must be going wrong, David. Even the most contrived "Bad Press" like the "Children Overboard" example, caused an upsurge of writers crying "injustice!" Where are the voices calling for you to get a fair hearing? Only within your own ranks.

That's one of the reasons why in the RR scheme of things, you are a c**t!

"I was thinking today about the overall attitude about the flame thread... like it's where people come to behave in an unchristian way, whereas the rest of the forum is where we all behave like Christians. And then I started catchin up on some of the other threads, and I thought that, on the whole, the kind of issues being discussed here do seem to deal more with the nitty gritty of Christian growth. I mean, we could argue forever about the trinity, discuss our favorite music, post a few good quotes, talk about what miracles you have experienced, or you could come over here and discuss whether it is an abuse of the system to eat discarded food, or talk about whether or not Christians are supposed to be popular. I think the issues here deal more with where our faith meets the road... not that there aren't some really good topics in the rest of the forum, nor that there are NOT some topics worth skipping over here!"

What the?

David's now advising his "children" to leave their "Christian" ways, discussing the trinity, miracles they have experienced etc, and "come over here" to the Flame Thread, where "people come to behave in an unchristian way".

And only yesterday he cautioned Zion's Daughter to go away from the Flame thread and go play on the other threads with the other lovely Christians? Go figure!

I think we are witnessing a man breaking down....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2007 05:40PM by Blackhat.

Both my perents were ex-children of God members, we fully know the extent of David Mckay the Jesus Christians are not apart of the Children of God, but the Jesus Christians have adopted and aknowleged the teachings of David Mo Berg, apart from the sexual content of bergs teachings, David Mckay dose un-admittedly accept David Berg as a Prophet.

They State

[www.jesus-teachings.com]

"We have incorporated many other teachings from The Family into our teachings (most notably, aspects of their teachings about living by faith, about endtime prophecy, and about living communally.)"

Please note David Berg was a Sex Pervert, a Child Moslester, a Rapist, a mental abuser, a Alcholic, a demon possesed man and a Drug Abuser.

How can any one state that this man was a prophet and then have the ordasity to adopt some of his teachings as being inspired from God, this man has done so much damage to both my perents and has had a effect on my life.

How can any group that claims that it is Christian but they are involved in promoting perverse bondage,

[www.myfoxla.com]

FOX 11 investigates a group that call themselves "Jesus Christians." They number only about fifty world wide, mostly young members following the rules of their leader.

my other points I wanted to make was, that this is typical of a cult leader like many cult leaders they are so blind they are in self denial


Miguel

Thanks for your first post, firstplumbline. Now there's a sentence.

No doubt Dave will be calling you Mr Lowe by tomorrow. But don't worry, he calls everybody he can't identify that.

Judging by his recent attempts at dialogue on the Ex Family of God site, some of them are fairly aware of his alleged links to the Family.

Thank you for drawing our attention to that site, Zeuszor.

Great work too regarding Theology Web.

It's hard work reading through all 19 pages and not all of it relates to the Jesus Christians, but it sure is recommended reading. I would suggest even to ex Jesus Christians who had no problem leaving because of McKay's "personality issues", but perhaps still struggle with the teachings.

It's easy to understand why a fifteen to eighteen year olds with little or no previous Bible knowledge could so easily fall foul of McKay's false teachings. But look how he fairs against people who know there stuff. Here's some of my favourites quotes:

JP Holding:

Speaking about the Jesus Christians:

“Part of the problem with critiquing I see is that they seem very proficient at saying as little as possible in as many words as possible.”

Old Man Zangetsu:

“It is important to uphold the truth, even if we have to get "ugly" about it. If McKay doesn't feel it necessary to defend the truth, well, that speaks a lot about his character.”

JP Holding:

Giving Dave some advice we probably all could agree on:

“It looks like you're not educated enough to recognize hyperbole contextually and so in your ignorance call it "plain common sense". In the ancient world, moral exhortation was a normal place for excessive language. Please don't waste our time with silly threats of "we may have to start thinking that Jesus himself was a hyperbole. Or that his resurrection was hyperbole". The latter are spoken of in nartrative, Greco-Roman bioi format which was NOT a genre for hyperbole of that type. Instead, start reading some decent works of Biblical scholarship.”

Rayado:

Originally posted by Dave McKay
That would certainly seem to be the case with the argument that the "Top Forty" commands of Jesus (simple little excerpts from the gospels) were "taken out of context". What theology class is it that teaches you how to use that argument, because over the years I have heard religious people all over the world use it even when they didn't have a clue what the context was. (Note: I'm not saying that it isn't possible to take something out of context, but I am saying that the argument is used repeatedly as a knee-jerk defence to anything that challenges your traditional way of viewing things... the "regular case".)

Rayado’s response:

“That would be the Hermeneutics class, the one that you missed. Rather than distraction, I'd like to see you show if and why JP was wrong in his evaluation of your "Top 40," because--surprise!--most of them were, in fact, taken out of their context. “


Looks to me that with all that is going on, poor ole Dave is about as popular as a fart in a lift at the moment . Perhaps we could take up a collection to send Dave off to Bible College?