jinnythesquinny:

Of course Dave McKay answers the questions and people rely upon him to supply the answers. He is actually the personality that defines the "Jesus Christians," rather than Jesus.

Anyone interested can visit the "Jesus Christians" message board and see who is posting and its content. It's plain enough. Not much outside of the McKay and his followers.

Why do you think McKay is seen so negatively by the public and has generated so much bad press? He has been called a "cult leader" for some time now.

Do you think he has done anything wrong?

What in your opinion has McKay done wrong specifically?

Quote

Of course Dave McKay answers the questions and people rely upon him to supply the answers. He is actually the personality that defines the "Jesus Christians," rather than Jesus.

The people who define the JCs for me are my friends in England-- I've only met Dave a couple of times but I do enjoy chatting with him on the forum. The JCs are a very diverse group of people, and this is reflected in the forums.

Quote

Anyone interested can visit the "Jesus Christians" message board and see who is posting and its content. It's plain enough. Not much outside of the McKay and his followers.

Who would have thought that the Jesus Christians would be the main contributors to the Jesus Christians forum? :roll:

Incidentally-- even the domain name is my fault-- it's an old one I was using as a mail alias that I bought just for the lol of it that I thought might suit the forum when I offered to do it.

Quote

Why do you think McKay is seen so negatively by the public and has generated so much bad press? He has been called a "cult leader" for some time now.

The JCs attracted some positive publicity in London-- I remember reading an article about them in the local paper.

I happily invite the UK JCs to my house for parties (including my birthday this weekend) without fear of embarrasment before my secular and pagan friends... I don't think I'd be doing that if they were loony cultists who weren't intelligent, independently thinking, entertaining, generally good company! I've met "proper" cult members, and I can assure you if you'd met any of my JC friends in the flesh you'd see how silly it is to tar them with the same brush. Loony, perhaps. Fringe, yes. But brainwashed cult members? No way.

The vast majority of the public have no opinion whatsoever on Dave McKay. The vast majority of the public don't give a monkeys about christianity at all, let alone a tiny group of fringe Christians. "Whatever" would be an [i:95fd828df9]enthusiastic[/i:95fd828df9] response from your average joe.

Quote

Do you think he has done anything wrong?

I think "all have sinned" is a correct statement and I'm absolutely certain Dave is no exception.

Quote

What in your opinion has McKay done wrong specifically?

In my personal opinion? I think he should stop insisting on making me let unregistered people post on the forum. I've also seen some pretty sharp sarcasm from him on the forum. But in the great cosmic (and only truly meaningful) sense of rightness and wrongness it's not my place to decide about anything Dave has or has not done. That's between him and his maker.

If you're really interested in my opinion of wrongness: I think you have said some very wrong things about my forum and it would be great if you could acknowledge that. It's very wrong to state things that you suppose to be the case as the truth without prefixing it with "it seems to me--" or suchlike.

jinnythesquinny:

Thanks for stating your position.

Essentially, the only thing you can see "wrong" with Dave McKay is that he is just too nice letting "unregistered people post on the forum."

OK.

For those interested in what others have to say about Dave McKay and his bad press coverage historically...

See [www.culteducation.com]

McKay's press has been overwhelmingly bad. And to those that do pay attention to him and his group the perception is that McKay has generally been a bad leader that has a negative and undue influence over his followers.

Brainwashed?

Yes, the people participating in the flogging on Fox, other than McKay, do appear "brainwashed." And some might conclude that when so many JCs decided identically to give away a kidney to a stranger, it was another example of McKay's undue influence.

Speaking as someone that has been qualified and accepted as an expert witness in court repeatedly regarding cults and cult leaders, in my opinion the "Jesus Christians" and McKay fit the criteria and his followers are "brainwashed."

It sounds like the "Jesus Christians" make you feel good. They celebrrate your birthday and pay kind attention to you.

Meanwhile many families have been devastated and torn apart by Dave McKay and they are not feeling quite so happy about the group's attentions.

But you don't seem to care about that.

"Let them eat cake," as another birthday party girl once said across the English Channel long ago.

OK.

I have no problem seeing and acknowledging your position.

And anyone reading this thread can likewise come to their own conclusions about what role you play within McKay's bizarre world.

What was it that you said? A "forum 'whore'" -- your words not mine.

It is interesting that Jinny can say [i:8a472aed7d]"Other people's hurt feelings aren't something I'm privy to either"[/i:8a472aed7d] seeing as this thread came into existance because of people expressing some of the hurt they experienced at David McKay's hands.

Jinny says: [i:8a472aed7d]"I know that most of my own hurt feelings are more down to my reaction to things rather than the things themselves."[/i:8a472aed7d]

Really, is it wrong for ex members who feel abused and violated to then express that abuse if there is a pattern of abuse happening within that community? Your answer, although true for you, may not neccessarily be true for others. Can you see this? It is also an answer which puts your interpretation of circumstances upon people, which does not enpower individuals to speak up.

Being a woman, I can safely assume that you would sympathise with victims of domestic violence. If a woman was complaining of constant intimidation at home, would you say that her feelings were simply a reaction to things rather than the things themselves. Is intimidation a "thing" that can be discounted as immaterial? Would it not be compounding the abuse to do so?

There are many accounts of Dave crossing boundary lines

[list:8a472aed7d]There are accounts of him interfering with the parenting of children to the point where he would take public greivances against parents who did not raise children they way he wanted.

There are accounts of him expecting parents to force their children to distribute tracts as young as 7 years old.

There are accounts of him lying to welfare agencies about seeking employment to get unemployment benefits.

There are accounts of him twisting Bible passages to create an environment of strong peer pressure to donate kidneys and to engage in violent actions against themselves and outsiders, i.e. whipping that volunteer in Kenya for no other reason than punishment and future deterrance.

There are accounts of him threatening his own children to stop discussions on this forum.

There are accounts of him trying to split up the marriages of his sons and previous members.

There are accounts of him physically assaulting one of his sons wives.[/list:u:8a472aed7d]

The list can go on and on Jinny

Do you seriously believe that the ex members posting on this forum are making it all up?

Do you seriously believe we have all been consumed by bitterness, and that Dave's account of things is an accurate rendering of facts?

His latest mini sermons provide solid examples of his ability to twist and distort facts to his own end. David McKay is unable to accept criticism. Many ex members can testify to that. Are we ALL wrong?

Are the Jesus Christians a group that refuses to listen to feedback from the people it impacts upon?

You say that the JC forum is open and that you have only banned one person. Don't you think it is notable that the person who was banned was the one challenging David McKay on his justification for killing people for Jesus when circumstances permit. Why did David McKay tell you to delete large sections of this persons posts when all that was happening was a discussion challenging the concept of being a killer for Christ?

Do you think it is of concern that David is attempting to dissect violence from emotion? It is a thought pattern that is worrying because it lays the ground work for Dave and his followers to engage in actual violence, while those who simply criticise his actions are labelled as "murderers" due to Dave connecting hatred to criticism.

Any who disagree with David are not tolerated in his sphere of influence. He has articles which attest to that fact. We have posted some of them here previously.

I would suggest Jinny that you spend some time discussing these claims to ascertain their validity. It is good that you are here to talk. I personally thank you for coming. You seem like a nice person. We are too.

[www.livingdonorsonline.org]
Extract from a post by
Dave McKay
This post is by an unregistered user. Please encourage users who care enough to post to register, too!
16-Nov-06, 04:00 AM (EST)

25. "RE: Dave McKay's 'kidney cult' flogged on Fox"
In response to message #24

LAST EDITED ON 16-Nov-06 AT 04:01 AM (EST)

'' Fair enough comment, Connie and Cathcull. I asked way up earlier on this thread for the whole thread to be deleted. It is full of slanderous claims against me'

No one is forced to read this thread, and, as I said previously, I didn't even bother reading all of that incredibly long posting. But if people want to sit here and read the muck that has been thrown at me, then I say that they better just shut up while I respond. ''

and another extract here

' I am absolutely opposed to this thread being closed, because I am in favour of it being deleted. There are some anonymous people who have appeared here with a single agenda, which is to destroy the Jesus Christians and to slander me, as the leader of the Jesus Christians. '

Interesting.

In previous posts McKay has attempted to describe himself as something other than "the leader."

Quote

Thanks for stating your position.

Thanks for [i:846ef35791]letting [/i:846ef35791]me.

Quote

Essentially, the only thing you can see "wrong" with Dave McKay is that he is just too nice letting "unregistered people post on the forum."

OK.

You asked what [b:846ef35791]I[/b:846ef35791] thought Dave had done wrong. Since I've only met Dave in the flesh twice I couldn't think of anything from those meetings. So I went for stuff I thought was wrong on the forums.

Quote

For those interested in what others have to say about Dave McKay and his bad press coverage historically...

See [www.culteducation.com]

McKay's press has been overwhelmingly bad. And to those that do pay attention to him and his group the perception is that McKay has generally been a bad leader that has a negative and undue influence over his followers.

This "evidence" contradicts my own experience sof the JCs. I can hardly be slated for the very human condition of preferring my own experience over hearsay.

Quote

Brainwashed?

Yes, the people participating in the flogging on Fox, other than McKay, do appear "brainwashed." And some might conclude that when so many JCs decided identically to give away a kidney to a stranger, it was another example of McKay's undue influence.

I simply cannot accept how something "appears" in a piece of biased journalism as more valid than how things "appear" in my own real life experience of the JCs.

Quote

Speaking as someone that has been qualified and accepted as an expert witness in court repeatedly regarding cults and cult leaders, in my opinion the "Jesus Christians" and McKay fit the criteria and his followers are "brainwashed."

Qualified by whom? To my knowledge there's no degree in cultbusting. There are degrees in philosophy and theology, Bible studies, that kind of thing.

I studied for a degree in theology at university. Can I be qualified too?

Does being an expert make one infallible? I don't think so.

Quote

It sounds like the "Jesus Christians" make you feel good. They celebrrate your birthday and pay kind attention to you.

Yes, them and all my other friends. I'm not [i:846ef35791]desperate.[/i:846ef35791] I have lots of other friends of many religious and non-religious positions who do the same for me. Like the JCs though, naturally that's not all they do. I'm no more a hedonist than I am desperate.

Quote

Meanwhile many families have been devastated and torn apart by Dave McKay and they are not feeling quite so happy about the group's attentions.

But you don't seem to care about that.

Perhaps if they weren't being fed half-truths and outright falsehoods aboout the Jesus Christians they wouldn't be so upset.

Quote

"Let them eat cake," as another birthday party girl once said across the English Channel long ago.

Actually a lot of scholars feel this is unfair. What Marie Antoinette said was "let them eat brioche", and was probably a request to open up the palace's supplies (as in those days the royals mostly ate brioche). There's two sides to every story.

Quote

OK.

I have no problem seeing and acknowledging your position.

And anyone reading this thread can likewise come to their own conclusions about what role you play within McKay's bizarre world.

The only role I play in Dave's "bizarre world" is offering some of my hosting space and a spare domain for forum purposes. Not really a role at all. I was partly motivated by the reaction the first time I joined this forum-- and was banned for talking about my own experiences with the JCs. Forums are a great medium for free expression and debate.

You made incorrect statements about my forum. Who knows what else is incorrect?

Quote

What was it that you said? A "forum 'whore'" -- your words not mine.

Yes I'm rather promiscuous in my forum useage. I especially like a couple of atheist forums I hang out on. There's also a music related one, the chat room I like, the Second Life forums, myspace... I get around.

=====

Quote

It is interesting that Jinny can say "Other people's hurt feelings aren't something I'm privy to either" seeing as this thread came into existance because of people expressing some of the hurt they experienced at David McKay's hands.

Really, is it wrong for ex members who feel abused and violated to then express that abuse if there is a pattern of abuse happening within that community? Your answer, although true for you, may not neccessarily be true for others. Can you see this? It is also an answer which puts your interpretation of circumstances upon people, which does not enpower individuals to speak up.

What people say in forums isn't going to contradict my own actual experience of the JCs. Feelings are an inner thing. The feeling I define as x may well be another's y. I know in "real life" people who get upset in situations when other's wouldn't. This is life. I would be very stupid if I stopped liking my friends because of hearsay on a forum, eh?

Quote

Being a woman, I can safely assume that you would sympathise with victims of domestic violence. If a woman was complaining of constant intimidation at home, would you say that her feelings were simply a reaction to things rather than the things themselves. Is intimidation a "thing" that can be discounted as immaterial? Would it not be compounding the abuse to do so?

Being a woman, I get hacked off when people say things like "Being a woman...". Violence and intimidation are violence and intimidation and is completely abhorrent in any form. Gender doesn't enter into it.

If someone came up to me and said "I am intimidated" or whatever I would assess their statement based on what I knew of them. But I don't know any of these ex-members so I have no idea how real or imaginary their complaints are. Sometimes I feel intimidated on the bus when someone sits next to me. The feeling is real, but I can hardly demand that the seat next to me is left free at all times now can I? Sometimes feelings are wrong or irrational. Just because someone feels something doesn't make it so.

Quote

There are many accounts of Dave crossing boundary lines

Most of which Dave has answered on this or my forum.

There are many accounts of Hitler being kind to children and animals; doesn't change the fact he was a complete swine. I really don't know why people are repeating hearsay as if it will change anyone's opinion based on actual and long experience. There are many accounts of Dave doing cool things, and articles where he has said sensible and reasonable things. There will always be contradictory accounts of any "public" figure.

Quote

Do you seriously believe that the ex members posting on this forum are making it all up?

If I believe everything I read on forums was the Gospel truth I'd be very confused indeed.

Why is what they post credible and what people who have good experiences not credible? Bias, I suspect.

I've seen things about me and the forum that I know to be untrue. So who knows what else is false or mere unproven supposition?

Quote

Do you seriously believe we have all been consumed by bitterness, and that Dave's account of things is an accurate rendering of facts?

Like I said I can't comment on specific cases. But it is true of all things that there are two sides to every story, and the truth is generally somewhere in the middle.

Quote

His latest mini sermons provide solid examples of his ability to twist and distort facts to his own end. David McKay is unable to accept criticism. Many ex members can testify to that. Are we ALL wrong?

I immediately am remembering an instance on my forum where Dave is criticized for sarcasm and accepts it.

Quote

Are the Jesus Christians a group that refuses to listen to feedback from the people it impacts upon?

Clearly not, given the very public nature of the welikejesus.com forum.

Quote

You say that the JC forum is open and that you have only banned one person. Don't you think it is notable that the person who was banned was the one challenging David McKay on his justification for killing people for Jesus when circumstances permit. Why did David McKay tell you to delete large sections of this persons posts when all that was happening was a discussion challenging the concept of being a killer for Christ?

"all that was happening?" The IP address was banned for more than the "Killers" thread. As I said in my post notifying people of the ban, it was getting boring, tedious and annoying watching personal vendettas unfold.

Quote

Do you think it is of concern that David is attempting to dissect violence from emotion? It is a thought pattern that is worrying because it lays the ground work for Dave and his followers to engage in actual violence, while those who simply criticise his actions are labelled as "murderers" due to Dave connecting hatred to criticism.

What I find more of a concern is that people have so much spare time to make post upon post when there's no real interest in dialogue.

Quote

Any who disagree with David are not tolerated in his sphere of influence. He has articles which attest to that fact. We have posted some of them here previously.

Seems to me there's a huge diversity of opinion about Dave on the forum. A lot of disagreement, and only one banned user. Banned by [i:846ef35791]me[/i:846ef35791].

Quote

I would suggest Jinny that you spend some time discussing these claims to ascertain their validity. It is good that you are here to talk. I personally thank you for coming. You seem like a nice person. We are too.

I'm not going to discuss stuff I don't know about. I'm a philosopher, not a politician.

I only popped up to correct some untrue and biased supposition about me and my forum (I was skimming over this thread to know what people are talking about over there). I know how I feel about the JCs and I'm not going to change my mind about them based on hearsay. So I'm probably not going to hang around to talk since the topics here are generally about things I have no experience of. If you want to talk generally, there's always welikejesus.com. :lol:

Once you understand that Dave really is not interested in truth, you see how easy it is for him to present different persona's to different people. He can be quite friendly and reasonable and tolerant of pagans and other people while other times "blasting" others with identical ideas, especially if they threaten group unity. I think this is what makes jinny surprised about our reactions to Dave and the JC's who have always been nice to her and her friends, and who can seem quite tolerant on the surface.

Also, JC's often fall over themselves to demonstrate to Dave how "tough" they can be, then Dave can waltz in and show tolerance. Rick, can you share about your experiences with this from other cult leaders? Is this a common cult leader phenomenon?

Quoting "jinnythesquinny"

Quote

What people say in forums isn't going to contradict my own actual experience of the JCs.

Jinny, unless you are choosing to deny what is being said here, what people are saying does contradict your experience. It is obvious we do not agree.

Quote

Feelings are an inner thing. The feeling I define as x may well be another's y. I know in "real life" people who get upset in situations when other's wouldn't. This is life. I would be very stupid if I stopped liking my friends because of hearsay on a forum, eh?

Nobody is asking you to "stop liking" your friends.

"Hearsay" is an interesting word. It does not apply to us as we did have direct experience of the things we say. We are not speaking from hearsay, but from experience.

Yes, feelings are an inner thing, and yes sometimes feelings of anxiety do not line up with reality, but sometimes they do. It is the times that do that we speak of.

Quote

Being a woman, I get hacked off when people say things like "Being a woman...". Violence and intimidation are violence and intimidation and is completely abhorrent in any form. Gender doesn't enter into it.

I apologise if I offended you. It was not intentional. I was trying to find some common ground from which to operate as sometimes it is easier to see things more clearly by doing so. You are correct that violence is abhorrent in any form, and that gender does not enter into it. I guess I was trying to capture the power imbalance that exists within the group, by comparing it to a domestic violence situation.

Quote

If someone came up to me and said "I am intimidated" or whatever I would assess their statement based on what I knew of them. But I don't know any of these ex-members so I have no idea how real or imaginary their complaints are. Sometimes I feel intimidated on the bus when someone sits next to me. The feeling is real, but I can hardly demand that the seat next to me is left free at all times now can I? Sometimes feelings are wrong or irrational. Just because someone feels something doesn't make it so.

If an individual comes into a police station complaining of being raped or continually bullied the responsible thing to do is to take down their account of facts as they saw them and to investigate. You can speak with witnesses, take down statements, examine the evidence etc. One does not need to "know" people.

You seem to focus a lot on feelings when it is actual events that were listed.

You seem to ignore claims about the actual physical assault of the wife of one of Dave's sons.

You seem to ignore claims about bogus employment application scams to get welfare handouts.

You seem to ignore claims that parents were dragged into greivance meeting for not raising children the way he wanted them to, or that it was expected that 7 year old children distribute tracts.

You seem to ignore a lot of things we say. It seems that you are quite biased against these claims because they do not fit the picture you have of the group.

Quote

Quote

There are many accounts of Dave crossing boundary lines

There are many accounts of Hitler being kind to children and animals; doesn't change the fact he was a complete swine. I really don't know why people are repeating hearsay as if it will change anyone's opinion based on actual and long experience. There are many accounts of Dave doing cool things, and articles where he has said sensible and reasonable things. There will always be contradictory accounts of any "public" figure.

To be boringly repetitious here, Nobody is repeating hearsay. We actually had direct experience of these things.

I agree that there will be contradictory accounts of public figures. You cite the example of Hitler. Some people today still think he was a great public figure and refuse to accept contrary accounts. Who knows why they do that when the testimony of people who were subjected to his actions are there for people to listen to. It really does seem to be a case that if what is being said does not fit our own experience then we reject it without a second thought. Hardly respectful of the person sharing their story don't you think.

Quote

Quote

Do you seriously believe that the ex members posting on this forum are making it all up?

If I believe everything I read on forums was the Gospel truth I'd be very confused indeed.

Why is what they post credible and what people who have good experiences not credible? Bias, I suspect.

I've seen things about me and the forum that I know to be untrue. So who knows what else is false or mere unproven supposition?

Nobody here is criticisng the good that David may do. We are not as he thinks seeking to stone him for a good work. What we are discussing here are the not so good works. The times people were subjected to abuse and intimidation within his group, under his leadershiip.

Quote

Like I said I can't comment on specific cases. But it is true of all things that there are two sides to every story, and the truth is generally somewhere in the middle.

If you cannot comment on specific cases why immediately assume that the "truth is... somewhere in the middle". This is little more than fence sitting. If it is claimed that someone stole something. It is a bit silly to respond. Oh [i:45fbe4b3a0]"I can't comment on specific cases. But it is true of all things that there are two sides to every story, and the truth is generally somewhere in the middle."[/i:45fbe4b3a0] It may be true that there are two sides to every story, but in cases of abuse only one side is right.

Quote

Quote

You say that the JC forum is open and that you have only banned one person. Don't you think it is notable that the person who was banned was the one challenging David McKay on his justification for killing people for Jesus when circumstances permit. Why did David McKay tell you to delete large sections of this persons posts when all that was happening was a discussion challenging the concept of being a killer for Christ?

"all that was happening?" The IP address was banned for more than the "Killers" thread. As I said in my post notifying people of the ban, it was getting boring, tedious and annoying watching personal vendettas unfold.

Did you warn the individual concerned?

Did you delete chunks of the individuals postings?

Quote

Quote

Do you think it is of concern that David is attempting to dissect violence from emotion? It is a thought pattern that is worrying because it lays the ground work for Dave and his followers to engage in actual violence, while those who simply criticise his actions are labelled as "murderers" due to Dave connecting hatred to criticism.

What I find more of a concern is that people have so much spare time to make post upon post when there's no real interest in dialogue.

This does not answer the question. Please answer the question.

Quote

Quote

Any who disagree with David are not tolerated in his sphere of influence. He has articles which attest to that fact. We have posted some of them here previously.

Seems to me there's a huge diversity of opinion about Dave on the forum. A lot of disagreement, and only one banned user. Banned by [i:45fbe4b3a0]me[/i:45fbe4b3a0].

Dave told you that the person should be "banned for good" on one of his posts the day before you did it, you then complied.

Quote

Quote

I would suggest Jinny that you spend some time discussing these claims to ascertain their validity. It is good that you are here to talk. I personally thank you for coming. You seem like a nice person. We are too.

I'm not going to discuss stuff I don't know about. I'm a philosopher, not a politician.

No-one here is discussing politics, or philosophy. I can appreciate that you are not going to discuss stuff you do not know about. Neither do we. We all know from personal experience what we are talking about to be true. That is the perspective an ex member has.

Quote

I only popped up to correct some untrue and biased supposition about me and my forum (I was skimming over this thread to know what people are talking about over there). I know how I feel about the JCs and I'm not going to change my mind about them based on hearsay.

To make another boringly repetitious statement, our personal experience does not represent "hearsay". Check it out in any dictionary.

Let me be so bold as to reword your closing line with that modified understanding... highlighting the emotion motivating your unchanged mind.

[i:45fbe4b3a0]"I know how I [b:45fbe4b3a0]feel[/b:45fbe4b3a0] about the JC's and I am not going to change my mind based on the direct personal experiences of others."[/i:45fbe4b3a0]

When you are ready to step out of the realm of your feelings into rational discussion, things may become clearer.

By the way Jinnythesqinny did you post here under the name of "Anaglypta"?

It is interesting that this poster has the same phraseology as you, i.e. "There's generally two sides to every story" Taken from post number 3 on 08-14-2005 01:33 AM of this whole thread.

Were you working with the JC's to start this thread off?

I do not think this thread would have went the way it did if "Anaglypta" did not point the way.

Is this another "Anita Frost" plan of Dave's that was obviously a bit more successful?

Rick, can this be verified by looking at the IP number of Jinnythesquinny and Anaglypta?

If it is her it throws a fresh insight on to things. So can this be verified please?