Quote
apostate
Do you agree with Dave's assessment that you have "cleverly coaxed" us somewhere in this discussion? Is that what you are doing? I would be disappointing if this was the case. So what say you?

What I have done is ask questions whose answers I was interested in hearing. I stated my reason for coming to ask questions in my first post. I don't have a list of questions designed to take you guys down a specific path or even any specific paths in mind that I'd like to go down. The questions I ask are triggered by your last response. The reason I asked about everyones feelings about a group like the Jesus Christians but without Dave in it (something I'm still interested in hearing about from the other ex-members) was because I noticed all of the items in your list of problems have to do with Dave, and almost all of them even start with the word "Dave". What I have stated above is all that I'm doing. I wouldn't describe it as clever. I would describe it as asking any question that happens to pop into my head because I'm interested in your answer. I am not trying to manipulate or even change anyones opinion about anything (I have serious doubts changing someones opinion is even possible via an internet forum). I am getting more credit than I deserve.

Quote
apostate
Josh, do you believe we are ATTACKING the JC's because of what they believe? My responses to you have been general and can be applied to ANY group or religion.

I can answer to only my own experience on this board so I limit my comments to that. Also I'd like to treat each of you sperately since different people have, of course, said different things.

Apostate, I don't remeber you saying things to me while I was on this message board that I would consider threatening specifically to the JCs because of what they believe. My impression of what you have said is that you think Dave is a very bad leader and the other people in the group wrongly accept him as being authoritative. Also you find the work they do (proselytizing) dangerous, but that is not specific to the Jesus Christians it is a statement about all proselytizers. You are right the things you have said that show your oposition to most of the beliefs of the JCs are really blanket statements you could apply to alot of religious groups.

I haven't heard back from Malcom yet on his opinion of the JCs without Dave.

matilda said along with Dave she'd like to also remove his writings and teachings. I understood that to mean she was against the Jesus Christians religious beliefs as a whole. I could also see how I could be misinterpreting that so that's why I asked for her clarification.

Quote
Dogmother
WE would like to close him down forever, dismantle his present "team" of poor, misled followers and have them all come over to our side.

This quote seems the most easy to classify as an attack on the group to me. Now that I read back the whole post I notice Dogmother didn't give the specific reason for wanting to dismantle the group. I had just asked a question about if a Daveless group would be acceptable and so at the time I assumed this meant "No it wouldn't be." I may have been wrong though, Dogmother can correct me.

cultmalleus said he didn't think a Daveless group would be sustainable and voiced his opposition to an endtimes focus from any religion so this was also not directed only at the Jesus Christians but a much larger group.

As I went back through the posts I notice that my answer to Ricks question has now shown up back on page 58. Thank you Rick for posting that. It is frustrating when my posts don't show up, but since you have now put it up I wanted to acknowlege publicly that you did post it after I asked nicely.

Josh:

It takes time for a post to be approved.

There is not a moderator constantly watching this board every minute.

Moderators here have other things to do, such as travel, sleep, go to work, etc.

Again, it seems to me that you are essentially here to subvert the board and to defend Dave McKay and his followers.

You are most often not really addressing the central issues, but attempting to draw the people posting here into side debates of your choosing.

This is the typical strategy of an "Internet troll."

The central issue of this thread is the undue influence McKay has over his followers and his techniques of manipulation and control. Also the damage done by McKay to his followers and/or their families.

BTW--Fran is still flaming on. She often includes insults within her posts, which have been edited out.

It seems that Fran is not long for this board, but at least she is forthcoming and honest about her real feelings, however disturbed they may be. Whereas you Josh are attempting to slyly slither around by distorting what people say and playing games.

Why not just be honest and admit that you are here as a kind of surrogate for Dave McKay?

Dear Josh,

I apologize for the delay in replying to you....(just getting more and more sidetracked in that illusory world of "meatspace"!)....hmm Daveless JC's???

I'd have to agree with Matilda...that the key issue must be the teachings and practices of the JC's more than any of the actual personalities involved. Apostate and several others have listed numerous concerns here, that in my reading of the JC's responses;

a) have been wilfully ignored, or

b) whose authors have been deliberately maligned or

c) which have been purposely misconstrued

(All which "tells" me of course that the criticisms are all indeed accurate!)

For the JC's to simply "rebadge" themselves with a new "leader" and then continue with same ol’ “same ol”” would be utterly unsatisfactory, and as there appear to have been several previous attempts to “masquerade” Davids’ departure, I personally wouldn’t believe anything of the kind unless the JC’s “verifiably” no longer communicated with David whatsoever, and we saw some dramatic improvement in their “rules of engagement”.

(Just abandon him and Cherry to the Quakers, Fran….that’s the retirement package for you….communicate with the other “cells” directly and if you really want to hear God’s will, debate important matters with the ex-members here on this site!!)

Here though,. let me say...(if we choose to persevere with the “leaders” and “followers” top down model)…

I briefly communicated with Ron Johnson after the documentary he made. He had a very high opinion of Sue (someone I've never met) at the very same time that he presented a far less positive image of David. It's a pity that she has been "yoked" so unequally in life (...although if Roland could be persuaded to just concentrate on washing dishes, mopping floors and other suitable household chores and let Sue otherwise "head" the show, it might all still be manageable enough). She and Ross would be my choices for alternative "leadership" in a "Daveless" world......(here again though I must acknowledge that Fran continues to post which I find impressive.....everyone else in his "independent cell of free-thinkers" will be no doubt be continuing to ridicule him for doing so)...both Ross and Sue would despise me, of course, but that's neither here nor there, as all of the Jesus Christians already do so anyway!! Others on this forum may be more up to date than I however, on the nature of those still involved….I welcome a straw vote from the other ex-members (even if you are forced to pick out the “least worst” in your opinion)

I thank the moderator for his forbearance, but I also would like to see Fran and other JesusChristians free to post on this site. I feel personally "big enough and ugly enough" to deal with (i.e. generally laugh at) their efforts to “put me in my place”. I have also appreciated Josh's perspectives, even if they are not always mine. Encouraging the Jesus Christians to have contact with some infectious and chaotic “life” outside of the sterile, predictable environment of their “oxygen tent” can only be helpful I think!

Josh and Fran may post here, but within the rules they agreed to.

I am deeply skeptical about Josh and don't think Fran really wants to do much other than attack people and rant.

Dave McKay said:

Quote

He has very cleverly coaxed the others into admitting that even if I were taken totally out of the picture, they would still continue to attack the rest of you because of what we BELIEVE.
SOURCE:[welikejesus.com]

Josh, what do you think about Dave's comment?

The reason I ask is that you mentioned on a previous post that the JCs have always been good/nice/friendly towards you. It seems, in this instance, that your intentions are being manipulated.

Quote
rrmoderator
Josh and Fran may post here, but within the rules they agreed to.

I am deeply skeptical about Josh and don't think Fran really wants to do much other than attack people and rant.

Surely not. :shock:
If this is the case then I have to admit to some amusement. Has coaxing ever really worked with any of us in the past? I have my own questions as to Josh's preoccupation with the JC's, but am prepared to engage with him and will wait for his comments on Dave's latest statement. Yes, it is true, this might be Dave's attempt to prove to his unhappy crew, that it is not HIS fault that the JC's never really got anywhere as a community. This bothers Dave, because the real thinking behind all of the experiments is that Dave would naturally prefer to front a [i:24a8a23293]movement[/i:24a8a23293] and refer to himself as a consultant or an advisor to the JC's. The thought that they might actually abandon him totally, forsake him and become entirely autonomous, worries him, or at least, it worries him at present. He needs to hold the reins for the moment. The fallout from the floggings and its wake is bound to be substantial. If the entire community were given the freedom to serve God as they please, very few would litness much.
Pointless speculating!. We are concerned about the JC's because we have voluminous first hand experience of Dave's [i:24a8a23293]style[/i:24a8a23293]. I think that much is adequately understated by every one of us ! 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?

I must appear alot brighter than I give myself credit for. Today I've been described as both clever and sly when all that I'm doing is firing off questions as they pop into my head. Oh well better than being called naive I guess.

Quote
Jack Oskar Larm

Quote
Dave McKay
He has very cleverly coaxed the others into admitting that even if I were taken totally out of the picture, they would still continue to attack the rest of you because of what we BELIEVE.
SOURCE:[welikejesus.com]

Josh, what do you think about Dave's comment?

The reason I ask is that you mentioned on a previous post that the JCs have always been good/nice/friendly towards you. It seems, in this instance, that your intentions are being manipulated.

I learned quite a while ago my life goes much better when I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. What I mean by that is if something is said to me that I could choose to either take offense at or to interpret as a misunderstanding I choose to interpret it as a misunderstanding. That does make me apear naive, but also gets me alot farther in my ability to get along with people.

I'd guess what happened is Dave must have wanted to get ex-members to say that they're problem is not just with him but with the JCs belief system. He probably didn't know how to do this so when he saw me asking a similar question and the people on this board answering it he assumed that I was clever. I choose to take it as a complement rather than get up set thinking that I was being manipulated by a person on the other side of the world who I have never met.

In the same way when Rick said that he thought I was slyly slithering around this board I could have taken it as an insult. I choose to take him calling me sly as a complement. I think both of them have misunderstood my intentions and given me more credit than I deserve, but I choose not to get mad about that.

Quote

apostate wrote:
Josh, do you believe we are ATTACKING the JC's because of what they believe? My responses to you have been general and can be applied to ANY group or religion.

Josh wrote:
I can answer to only my own experience on this board so I limit my comments to that. Also I'd like to treat each of you sperately since different people have, of course, said different things.

Apostate, I don't remeber you saying things to me while I was on this message board that I would consider threatening specifically to the JCs because of what they believe. My impression of what you have said is that you think Dave is a very bad leader and the other people in the group wrongly accept him as being authoritative. Also you find the work they do (proselytizing) dangerous, but that is not specific to the Jesus Christians it is a statement about all proselytizers. You are right the things you have said that show your oposition to most of the beliefs of the JCs are really blanket statements you could apply to alot of religious groups.

Thank you Josh for publicly saying that I am NOT attacking Dave's group. I trust you will say as much to Dave on his forum next time he makes such false accusations, as he needs some sort of guidance in this area. You seem to be a lot Such accusations are routinely made by Dave because he equates valid criticisms as attacks. Now you have seen it happen for yourself. It is why most of us were ex communicated, and then slandered in his attempt to prevent continuing members from speaking with us.

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

just something i found on the jc forum and i'm a bit disgusted by it

Quote

Ross

Just for those who are curious about female anatomy. I happened to be in the library recently and looked in a science book.
It showed that that female clitoral area is much bigger than it appears.
Apart from the obvious pea sized projection at the top of the vaginal opening
, a whole bunch of nerve fibres extend like a wish bone behind the clitorus and down both sides of the vaginal entrance. This tissue lies underneath the surface and cannot be seen. But it becomes sensitive to the rhythmical strokes of intercourse.
Another area in the vagina, called the G spot is another part of this connection.
It lies somewhere behind the vaginal wall, and becomes very sensitive
at some point during intercourse.
In other words its not just the clitorus alone that does it for women.

Whereas men usually have no trouble in finding which parts of their anatomy are sensiitive, it seems that women have to do a bit more work to find out
which parts work best for them. Some women find it harder to orgasm than others. Part of this may be psychological, or just being afraid to explore their own bodies.
I'm not asking women to comment on their own peculiarities here, but just thought they may appreciate the info. Husbands may also find it helpful in
increasing their wives enjoyment.
_________________

this is on the jc forum under the sex issue subject and was posted by ross yesterday