FOR RRMODERATOR

One other matter, I feel I made a fair point in a previous post which has been skipped over.

you wrote ...

xxxFor example, longevity doesn't give the McKay group or any group meaningful credibility

to which I replied ...

xxxReally?? Surely a group increases in credibility as it endures. Historical parallels are numerous
xxx ... Salvation Army, Methodists, Calvinists, Presbyterians ... possibly even the Jesus Army
xxx(see their new Jesus Centres). So, in this case, I must state that you are simply wrong.
xxxIt gives many groups credibility as they evolve and develop links and respect within the
xxxworld at large.

Here we have groups, initially with single 'charasmatic' figures(Gurus? Cult leaders?), who have endured, evolved and found a place of stability and respect within society. I chose groups at different stages of such evolution ...

SArmy, now a worldwide institution and very well thought off ... General Booth endured many years of extreme hostility in the SArmys early years

John Calvin, you can go and study his works in any university, once again same pattern ...

Noel Stanton, of Jesus Army fame, we can still find online articles condemning the jesus army as a cult, but many commentators now admit that as noel prepares to stand down, the organisation has found at least some credibility ... and thus an easing of tension with the community at large. Will teh Jesus Army die with the aging Noel ... no. Will it continue to evolve into a well respected international institution ... possibly.

And, considering all this, my point is that surely it is at least feasable that teh JCS could undergo such a period of evolution. (Infact, if I look at their literature and your visual archive, I witness for myself an evolution of their theology and a very slight lessening of tension with the community at large ... ie their attempted friendships with the quakers, and a review of their attitude towards mainstream churches.)

your sentence, and I quote xxx longevity doesn't give the McKay group or any group meaningful credibilityxx is, as stated above, simply wrong in many cases.

This is a sensible, logically argued post on one of your points. Perhaps you could reply in a similar manner and we could properly 'get the ball rolling' in a way that could benifit us both in our pursuit of knowledge ....

Best wishes, EE

PS Please anyone else out there feel free to comment on the above ...

I want to post about the JC absence from the new forum:

So many folk here have shown their willingness to have reasoned discourse with Jesus Christian members, without any moderation or banning from a forum. They have posted on the new [jcs.xjcs.org] forum. A forum set up so that JC's can have unmoderated dialogue with others on a neutral ground.

So far the uptake has been from posters here, and a few very worthy and articulate JC sympathisers, both parties having free access to dialogue. It has been very enlightening and open, and I have enjoyed participating.

There is one very big thing which concerns me;

Dave said when this forum was first launched that JC's shouldn't bother with it.

None of them have. Neither has he. But of course, it's not a Cult....

And yet, since the new forum was launched, David has made reference to accusations being made on the RR Forum, and he wails that he is banned. And he knows there is a forum where he is not banned.

So he rants against no right of reply, and declines to attend the place where he has one!

One has to wonder just how sincere this man is!

Here is the forum again, for all you independent-thinking J.C.'s, just in case you are having trouble finding it:

[jcs.xjcs.org]

Regards

Blackhat



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2008 06:11PM by Blackhat.

Egypt:

You mention the Salvation Army.

Good example.

I have never received a single complaint about the Salvation Army.

No complaints about "Methodists, Calvinists, Presbyterians" either.

I continue to receive very serious complaints from families and former followers of the McKay group.

For such a small group to generate such serious complaints is quite significant.

Jesus Army remains a controversial group.

There is nothing "Christ-like" about McKay's behavior.

McKay's behavior over the years reflects a man that runs a group to fulfill his own needs and desires, for attention, control and power.

Posing in his religious guise McKay also has managed to avoid getting a real job and seemingly satisfied his frustrated ambition of become a successful writer.

There is nothing about McKay that resembles his claim of behaving like "Jesus Christians" other than the name of his group.

Of course Jesus once said that many would come in his name, but he would not know them. And the New Testament warns about wolves in sheep's clothing.

These portions of the New Testament would seem to apply directly to Dave McKay. His leadership style also seems to follow the pattern admonished by Paul in Galatians, when he warned the church about controlling leaders and the negative consequences of submitting to them.

It's sad to see good people taken in and exploited by McKay. His followers often appear sincere and seem to believe earnestly in the ideals McKay claims to emulate.

The devoted members of the group have made sacrifices unselfishly, which is the group's best testimony.

But rather than reflecting anything about McKay, this is a reflection of what is "Jesus Christian" about the group, i.e. the faith and commitment of individual believers.

Can the JCs evolve into a healthy group?

Perhaps.

But this would occur after Dave McKay is gone.

However, personality-driven groups like the JCs usually disintegrate after the death of the leader.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2008 09:13PM by rrmoderator.

Blackhat:

A point should be made about moderation and banning.

The subject matter and groups discussed on this board make moderation and banning necessary.

That is, cult members have attempted to subvert this board and run people off by spamming rants repeatedly, personal attacks, etc. etc.

Dave McKay and his devotees specifically did this.

McKay engaged in personal attacks targeting his perceived enemies, attempting to intimidate people posting on this message board.

McKay's followers were often basicly ranting, no real exchange of ideas, or discussion about much of anything.

If there wasn't moderation and banning on this board it would be compromised and subverted by such bad behavior.

But if you wish to have an open board that's your choice.

Hopefully McKay and his disciples will behave better on that board, but don't expect much given the group's history.

FOR RRMODERATOR ...

Firstly thanks for your previous post ... very interesting.

xxxYou mention the Salvation Army. Good example. I have never
xxxreceived a single complaint about the Salvation Army.

Ah, but are you aware that during the initial years of themovement General Booth was vilified as a cult leader, and the SA widely refered to as a cult. Press was largely negative about the group, etc. Ok, you may not get complaints now, but what if they had just started up ... the 'modern' thing to do would be to contact yourself with concerns I feel ...

xxxNo complaints about "Methodists, Calvinists, Presbyterians" either.

Once again I feel you missed my point. My point was that all the groups I quoted had 'evolved' to a greater or lesser degree. It was during their early years, for large amounts of their founders lives, that they were seen as dangerous cult like groups ... and their members were vilified.

xxxI continue to receive very serious complaints from families and former
xxxfollowers of the McKay group. For such a small group to generate such
xxxserious complaints is quite significant.

This is a fair point ...

xxxJesus Army remains a controversial group.

Yes, but again if you look at the contextof my post, I stated that teh JA were in a relatively unevolved state still. But slowly they seem to be achieving 'some degree' of acceptance from the community at large.
see [en.wikipedia.org]

xxxThere is nothing "Christ-like" about McKay's behavior. McKay's behavior
xxxover the years reflects a man that runs a group to fulfill his own needs
xxxand desires, for attention, control and power.

Now, I can only give an outsiders opinion, but there do appear to be similarities between the teachings of Jesus and Dave's approach to life... 1 poverty 2 fasting 3 preaching 4 a good beard (thats a joke) 4 simple clothing 5 assembling a band of dedicated followers 6 standing against the religious authorities ... and I could probably go on

xxxPosing in his religious guise McKay also has managed to avoid
xxxgetting a real job and seemingly satisfied his frustrated ambition
xxxof become a successful writer.

This part sounded a little personal. Have you had 'personal' dealings with Dave which could be clouding your judgement? Just a question ... Also not having a real job, I see thsi as being very unfair indeed. He has obviously dedicated 20 plus years to preaching and distributing literature. we can discuss his motives and his material, and disagree on our conclusions, but he does seem like an 'active' man, a man who acts out his beliefs ...

xxxOf course Jesus once said that many would come in his name, but he
xxxwould not know them. And the New Testament warns about wolves in sheep's clothing.
xxxThese portions of the New Testament would seem to apply directly to
xxxDave McKay. His leadership style also seems to follow the pattern admonished
xxxby Paul in Galatians, when he warned the church about controlling leaders and
xxxthe negative consequences of submitting to them.

Once again this sounds a little personal ... Dave being the afortold 'super apostles' of Pauls letters??

xxxCan the JCs evolve into a healthy group? Perhaps. But this would occur
xxxafter Dave McKay is gone.

Not sure about this. Lots of issues here ... who decides what is a 'healthy' group? Surely a group that becomes established often idealises the original leader ... for good or for bad ...

xxxHowever, personality-driven groups like the JCs usually disintegrate
xxxafter the death of the leader.

Thats your area of expertese. Will check this out.

All in all a great post and thought provoking. Thanks.

Best wishes, EE

FROM WIKIPEDIA - RE: GENRAL BOOTH OF SALVATION ARMY

xxxOpinion of the Salvation Army and William Booth eventually changed to that of favour.
xxxIn his later years, he was received in audience by kings, emperors and presidents, who
xxxwere among his ardent admirers. Even the mass media began to use his title of 'General'
xxxwith reverence.

Not bad for a former charismatic 'cult' leader, previously vilifed in the popular press.

Egypt:

The Salvation Army is in no way comparable to Dave McKay and his small following of devotees.

McKay is not admired by anyone significant other than the devotees that follow him and perhaps a few people like yourself. He continues to be considered a "cult leader."

McKay unlike the Salvation doesn't help people, but rather hurts people and has no conscience or compassion about it whatsoever.

If you did meaningful research about what the British press dubbed the "kidney cult" you would realize that.

Again, read every one of the articles, if you are seriously interested in finding out the facts.

Dave wasn't the first to give up a kidney, but he cynically and in his typical manipulative fashion, used this issue to get media attention.

You are not making any meaningful point here other than that you are here as a diehard apologist.

EE, because you have said this:

Hello's post above is what im looking for ... it contains information which I can now go and research ... and hints at possible dangers I, and my family, may face ... THIS is why I am on this forum.

I will offer up some eye witness accounts and personal experience for you of life in the JC cult that, as a family man, you would do well to seriously consider.

1. The JC's, Dave in particular, will inject himself into how your small family operates. You will find yourself having to give an account for many decisions you make as a parent, i.e. to give coca cola or not, how many tracts the child is expected to deliver, if the child sleeps with other adults in a separate room as a member in their own right, how many smacks you can administer, how open you are to another adult locking your child in a room without your permission.

2. I have personally witnessed Dave disconnecting the battery on the wheel chair of a child suffering severe terminal multiple sclerosis, much to the horror of his mother who left the group immediately after this occurred. Dave's reasoning at the time was that the child was trying to get away from him. Since then he has justified it by saying the child was trying to use the wheel chair as a "weapon"

3. There is a mandatory separation required between married couples for 3 months each year. Dave does this because he is threatened by the unity a good marriage has and the power that unity represents.

4. You will be taught that donating a kidney is a biblical requirement and that John the Baptists "He who has two, should give to he who has none" admonition refers to body parts.

5. Dave Mckay instructed his group on how to defraud welfare, i.e. fill in claims for unemployment benefits while falsely claiming to be sincerely looking for employment in order to get the money.

6. David McKay, has forbidden his wife from seeing her own children and grandchildren, of whom all bar one have been systematically ejected from his group. Prior to the ejection he did everything he could to try and break up their marriages.

7. Life in Dave's community is so dominated by his narcissistic opinion that you will find yourself being challenged by which end you squeeze a toothpaste tube, how many squares of toilet paper you use, whether you doing daily runs or not, how many tracts you distribute, and what donations you receive for them.

8. Dave cannot tolerate any sort of disagreement whatsoever. He cannot live with it, especially not from a follower. To him, the "mind of Christ" means everybody has to think like and agree with him. Express a disagreement with him and watch and see what happens. This is partially the reason behind my comments that you join his group. I am so convinced that you will see these things for yourself, because of your questioning nature, that I am confident you will in time see through him.

9. As you watched the JK show you would have seen survivors of Jones town expressing their concerns about the similarites between Jim Jones and David McKay regarding his approach, temperament, as well as also being unteachable.

10. Divorcees are forbidden to get remarried, as this is adultery in the JC's. There is no second chance irregardless of whether the woman fled for her life to get away from a violent rapist husband.


11. He is not seeking acceptance with the larger society by entering the Quakers. he is infiltrating the group and using their respectibility to claok his own actions. How do I know this, because it is what we did often in his group. He views mainline churches and hypocritical pharisees, old bottles who reject his pure presentation of Jesus teachings.

12. He has a panel of judges within the JC's that judge the "sins" of those within the group.

13. He has publicly whipped a volunteer in Kenya for theft, contrary to biblical direction and the laws of that country.


There are many other such instances. Hopefully that will be enough to give you some facts to consider.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2008 05:06AM by apostate.

For APOSTATE:

Thanks very much for the post. A lot of food for thought ... and my gut feeling is that there is much here for me to consider.

I do love my family very much and do not wish to endanger them in any way.

I will now take these points and do some further research ...

Best wishes, EE

ps Im starting to think perhaps you all may have a point ...

Quote
Josh
What I keep coming back to is what I mentioned above about what a 98% Christian country would be like. Could a society really function in the real world always turning the other cheek? I grant you the point that to follows Jesus's example would be to always turn the other cheek, but do you think this would work on a large scale? The question's not rhetorical. It seems to lack faith in Christ to say that it wouldn't work for everyone to always turn the other cheek, but it seems go against common sense to say that it would.

Josh, I see it as an ideal to be strived for. I think a non violent approach to dealing with criminals is the most effective, long lasting, and most, in the end, easily internalized by the perpetrator. I consider jails where perpetrators of crime get to think about their actions, attend counseling sessions targeting irrational dysfunctional thought patterns as being a more humane way of dealing with crime. To utilize violence as the JC's have done with the whip in Kenya is to allow the crime to dehumanize them and turn them into the very thing they seek to oppose. The JC's became law breakers the moment they picked up that whip. Every word they spoke after that was a justification for doing so. Their justifications would not stand in any court of law.

I work on a daily basis with the type of people Dave whipped. His action is abhorrent and more than likely would add to a long history of violence the volunteer already experienced. The JC's are simply another person in the line who have beaten that person. Hardly an effective memory for him to hold.

Quote
Josh

Quote
apostate
So Josh, please tell us what the "best way" is.

I don't know what would be the "best way". How do we define best? The way that most matches Jesus's example, or the way we think might best reform the theif? If we choose Jesus's example which example should we choose? The one where he let the adulteress go free or the one where he died on the cross as a substitute for our sins?

I agree that it is difficult to know which way is the best way. But I do think it has to start at a societal level, i.e. do we publicly whip someone or not? Do we publicly hang, shoot, inject, gas, or electrocute them? Who is really being sent a message by these type of actions? Are these ways of dealing with crime something that we want to see and emulate in our private individual dealings of wrong doing? What are the JC's doing that challenges such things? I see nothing. To me they are part of the problem.

Quote
Josh
I have no idea the best way to reform a thief, I also am not really sold on the idea of Christians taking substitute punishment onto themselves (even though I defend the right of the JCs to believe differently), and if I'm 100% honest I seem to lack the faith to be sold out to letting people get away with their crimes.

I've always thought the idea of a shun seemed like a good one. I think the Amish use it. Whether it works or not who knows, whether it's the best way I have no idea. I just thought it sounded interesting so if I ever find myself in charge of some comunity maybe we'll try out shuns.

I also do not think that people should "get away" with their crimes as a norm. I support a non violent ay of dealing with crime.

I do think that there is a certain power of forgiveness that comes from being a victim that can be truly life changing to the perpetrator of a crime if the victim so chooses, or is able to utilize it. Look at Mandella's example. No whip there! I think the JC's miss that point completely in whipping that volunteer, and in presenting that volunteer with the "option" of watching a friend be whipped in his stead. In this instance the power went to the "criminal".

Quote
Josh

Quote
apostate
Defend the use of the whip.

I've been defending the use of a whip. Not as the best way, not as the way I would choose, but as within everyones rights to offer up as a deal to avoid criminal charges and as an object lesson for a point the JCs wanted to get across.

So how do you think the best way to handle this situation would have been? Do you think your answer is something that could be applied to all situations? It'd be nice to say we'd always forgive and ask for nothing in return, if some of you really operate that way I'm impressed.

This is where we disagree. I do not believe the JC's had a "right" to break Kenyan law.

I think a better way to handle the situation would be the concept of restorative justice, such as was utilized by Nelson Mandella as it empowers the victim and helps the perpetrator see the imapct their crime had upon victims.

So in the example where the JC's felt sinned against it would have been better to sit down and follow a restorative justice pattern where both sides gets to say what they want to say and from there move on.