Figures it would be Ross.

He likes to present himself as the college professor type puffing on his pipe sitting in his wollen cardigan in front of female students. He's the clown that accused women from developing countries as being wanton after western materialism, and then taking their husbands out of the group.

Ross likes to talk about such things publicly. I would not be surprised if he gets some intrinsic satisfaction out of doing so.

My "candidate" shoots himself in the foot! (..or in the groin??)

Having just nominated Ross as my favourite "non-Dave" leader, it's dissapointing to see what appears little more than closet voyeurism in one of his postings....but isn't that what the Sex Issue forum is intended to be. Ross may be no more worse than the other people who post there, and possibly a little better.....anyway I hope so....

(How about suggesting to David that he run a "Pyschological torment made easy" or "Belittling others for fun and profit" subject site on the JC forum as well, that should generate a lot of interest, too!)

I haven't seen him for over two decades, but hope that Ross has not degenerated completely into the "college professor"-wannabe that you write of Apostate. I remember him as someone of more "depth" than that when we were both members. I know that I've certainly "hardened" over the years.....sad to see it (if its' the case!) in someone I remember as a friend.

Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
My "candidate" shoots himself in the foot! (..or in the groin??)

Having just nominated Ross as my favourite "non-Dave" leader, it's dissapointing to see what appears little more than closet voyeurism in one of his postings....but isn't that what the Sex Issue forum is intended to be. Ross may be no more worse than the other people who post there, and possibly a little better.....anyway I hope so....

(How about suggesting to David that he run a "Pyschological torment made easy" or "Belittling others for fun and profit" subject site on the JC forum as well, that should generate a lot of interest, too!)

I haven't seen him for over two decades, but hope that Ross has not degenerated completely into the "college professor"-wannabe that you write of Apostate. I remember him as someone of more "depth" than that when we were both members. I know that I've certainly "hardened" over the years.....sad to see it (if its' the case!) in someone I remember as a friend.

Ross is someone I actually feel a degree of sorrow for in that his relationship with Dave is tantamount to a domestic violence situation where he has been subjected to a lot abuse over the years in the form of public humiliation. He has been thrown out many times, and comes back apologeticly for more. It is a definite cycle he goes through.

malcolm and apostate:

What kind of a person is Fran.

I have been receiving some pretty bizarre private messages from her.

Is she a victim, an enforcer for McKay or what?

Rick, it's better if you ask Xenophone, as he is the one who knows me the most. Malcom has never met me, and apostate has spent little time with me and that was about nine years ago.

Fran,

The "autonomous groups" sounds a lot better than the "central command" structure that I was part of...there appear to have been some new "operational practices" put into effect since I was part of the Christians (....however Muppet has advised me, that in her opinion, these were just "window dressing" exercises...do you have a comment on that?) Of course, if the groups are “autonomous” as you say, then you are naturally personally responsible for the practices they engage in.

Your comments that I am “manipulative” presumably are made in comparison to the behaviour of other people from whom you have experienced manipulation ……Do you find me more “manipulative” than say David McKay who claims that being manipulative for the “right reasons” is perfectly acceptable. If what David says is true, then of course your remarks to me are logically inane. If what David says is not true (being manipulative is always inherently bad) have you then chided David for being manipulative…..if not, you would appear deeply hypocritical…..please see to the “beam” in Davids’ eye before concerning yourself with the “mote” in anyone elses’.

Lets choose a specific policy (and return to something Matilda raised several pages earlier) and see exactly how "autonomous" you are....when I first joined the Jesus Christians (running away from home to do so), I took all my savings (at nineteen years of age, not a great deal of money of course) donated it to a local charity and set off for Tallangatta. Here I was acting in response to the frequently cited scripture in the literature I had received from David "…one thing thou lackest, go thy way sell what you have, and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven,and come take up the cross and follow me" (Jesus to the wealthy man in Mark 10:21)).....eventually, not long after I had arrived at the farm house, David got around to asking me if I had any savings. When I told him what I had done (i.e. literally followed the scriptures he had quoted at me)...the disappointment was palpable. At the time, I just put this petty greed down to a “temporary” foible on Davids’ part, although with hindsight, it appears I was being unnecessarily gracious in my assessment.

As Fran, no doubt …”bewares of covetousness”…and his own life “consisteth not of the abundance of things which he possesseth”, he will share my distaste at Davids’ reaction to my “youthful idealism”. Now that Fran has told us that his own cell is “autonomous” Fran must then share the responsibility for the policies they follow. IF you feel obliged to “pillage” (e.g. Ash’s experience as detailed by sWord) new disciples, you no doubt also feel equally committed to then donate the full proceedings to a charity OTHER than yourselves…..don’t you Fran? You wouldn’t “water down” the scriptures for your own pecuniary benefit would you Fran? It matters not that other early Christians may not have done exactly as Christ explicitly instructed in Acts (i.e. David favourite scripture that they laid what they had at the “Apostles” feet) because you are a JESUS Christian Fran….you follow the teachings of Christ to the letter! (…remember that???)

Who is your "cornerstone", Fran? Christ....other people who have written about Jesus or Davids “flavor of the month” (Quakers bad….Quakers good, deceit and manipulation bad….deceit and manipulation good…..and one day, Fran….good, Fran….??)

So…umm…what became of Ashes possessions?.....or Joe Johnsons? Which charity did you support or which poor people did you donate it all to??? Naturally you wouldn’t have kept any of it, as you “live by faith” just as Christ did, and do not need to stoop to the pusillanimous behaviour of “pocketing” what is intended to be “sacrificed” to God.

I find it hard to discern the sincerity of God in you Fran. You have avoided discussion of any the policies, that by your own admission, you are in fact responsible for… If you don’t’ know what the practises were among the Jesus Christians, before you were involved and you choose NOT to find out, that’s making a statement about you in itself.

For my part perhaps you cannot discern much “love of God” in me towards you…but there certainly is many of the others who take the time to post here and communicate with you and if you can’t discern that Fran, it’s only because your soul has slowly “calcified” as you have continued to lie and obsequiously obfuscate on behalf of David Mckay.

Excuse me.

I thought "Fran" was a woman.

It seems that Fran is actually a man.

Thanks for correcting me.

At any rate whoever "Fran" is--there is no reason to support space here for the same rants over and over again. And certainly not for any attacks against the families that have been victimized by the JCs.

Fran apparently is attempting at times to manipulate people by using the private messaging system.

FYI--Any seemingly nice messages Fran sends are in sharp contrast to the rants that have come through my mailbox, which both totally support Dave McKay without question and slam his critics.

Fran apparently has been under McKay's influence for about 9 years and is deeply indoctrinated and/or much too personally invested to think his way out.

Quote
rrmoderator
Excuse me.

I thought "Fran" was a woman.

It seems that Fran is actually a man.

Thanks for correcting me.

At any rate whoever "Fran" is--there is no reason to support space here for the same rants over and over again. And certainly not for any attacks against the families that have been victimized by the JCs.

Fran apparently is attempting at times to manipulate people by using the private messaging system.

FYI--Any seemingly nice messages Fran sends are in sharp contrast to the rants that have come through my mailbox, which both totally support Dave McKay without question and slam his critics.

Fran apparently has been under McKay's influence for about 9 years and is deeply indoctrinated and/or much too personally invested to think his way out.

Fran seemed like a nice enough person when I first met him. He has undoubtedly made many decisions since that time which has rendered his decion making capacity severely limited to the narrow world view of the JC's. So I would agree that he has a lot personally invested in the JC's, too much to be able to actually engage in a conversation with where he would actually concede something.

Quote
Josh
... 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 [b:856b392afb]coaxed[/b:856b392afb] 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.

I was more interested in the statement by Dave that you are coaxing. Being clever, naive, sly and slithering - take it as you will - but to be labeled as someone who is coaxing (read: manipulating or persuading) can only be interpreted as trolling this forum. So, I ask again, what do you think of Dave's view that you are trying to manipulate or persuade the discussion here?

Oops, as you said, you'll just see it in a postive way and gain strength from any interpretation of your motives. Call me naive, but the way I see it is that Dave is like an very abusive individual and ex-members are survivors of his abuse. You're obviously not concerned about his abusive ways toward people, perhaps, because you've 'fallen in love' with him. Consider the parallels of any abusive relationship where a person choses to ignore a person's destructive history even when there are many victims with testimonies of his/her abuse. I know it's easy to blame the victim when we just can't see (or don't want to see) a person's faults and/or crimes.

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.

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...

But what I do know is that my mother endured years of violent abuse at the hands of my father. Sadly, we often don't see our unhealthy thinking (and feelings) until we've had enough distance from this type of abusive relationship. Tragically, only then do we realise the true misunderstanding of our motives.

My friend callled me up today, she said she discovered this site and was amazed that a group was mentioned that I had some contact with a few years ago.

It has greatly distressed me when i looked around this site to see she was in fact correct.

I spent a trial week with this group of "Jesus Christians" and at first they were really nice to my face but than I discovered this was all an act when I overheard some of them expressing to the others I seemed stuck up.
Im not a dumb person and I found it strange that they were very aloof with me until they discovered that I had inherited $200,000 from my deceased gradmothers estate. It was like doing a full lap when they started being super friendly to me.

What they do day in and day out with the population was a plus for me, I can see that they all have good hearts, however this act of being nice just to get their hands on my grandmothers money was quite off putting.