All good question PI

Dave, when are you going to visit your family? Relationships with family are important. I am sure you and your grandchildren would both benefit from each others company. Time to lay it all aside and focus on relationships with family members.

Quote
private eyes

You will also recall that even you were supposed to be me at one stage or wasn't it David LOWE's wife.......

Ah yes, Private Eyes, I remember it well......those halcyon days when Dave McKay had us married....(sigh).....but then it all came to a sad ending when he discovered who I am....

So now that we are no longer wed.....(sob).....I thought Dave should seriously consider that it is far more likely that you are investigating him for the F.B.I., the C.I.A. or the I.R.S. than any li'l old Australian Quaker Meeting....

And after all, wouldn't it make him so much more of a martyr if the big players in the 'Fall of America' were to place him right there in centre stage?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2008 05:25PM by Blackhat.

Aaah Blackhat! What nostalgia you're creating! I remember those days well, back when myself and Brian were romantically involved and happily living together...LOL
Seriously though, a while back you mentioned ' The Shadow'- so I thought I'd post a summary of it- written by my favourite psychologist Anodea Judith- in her fantastic book ' Eastern Body, Western Mind'. Judith has a Ph. D in health and human services, an M.A. in clinical psychology, and additional training in trauma recovery. I find her extremely coherent.

' The shadow represents repressed instinctual energies that are locked away in the realm of the unconscious. They do not die or cease to function, but they are no longer part of conscious awareness, no longer directly expressed through our conscious activity. Consequently, they are enacted unconsciously, sometimes with great force. We may think we never get angry but enact a passive stubbornness that infuriates others. We may deny our own neediness, but subtly manipulate ourselves into the center of attention.
Keeping the shadow in chains requires a great deal of energy and robs the whole of its grace and power. Futhermore, it doesn't work. The shadow chases us in our dreams. It sabotages our work and relationships. It energizes compulsive activities. When the shadow is repressed we are cut off from our wholeness and from our ground. As the instinctual energies are a large part of the child psyche, we are also removed from the innocence and spontaneity of the inner child.
When the shadow remains unacknowledged, it is projected onto others. Like a hidden shape over which we shine our inflated light, the shadow is seen parading shamelessly in the behaviour of those around us, while we remain righteously virtuous. Maria, who repressed her sexuality, saw every man as trying to get sexual favours from her. Sandy's foster mother, a benevolent leader in her church community, was punishing and controlling at home, constantly accusing Sandy of immoral behaviour.
Shadow qualities are met with intense criticism and judgment as they are projected onto others. The prescence of this judgment is our clue to the shadow as a rejected self. If sexuality is a rejected self, then overt sexuality in others will produce a highly charged negative reaction ( much like what we see in some religious sects fixated on the sexual behaviour of others). If anger is a rejected self, we will fear and criticize it in others. If we suppress our emotions, we will have little tolerance for those who are needy, crying or strongly expressive. It makes us very uncomfortable to be around someone expressing our shadow energies. Our judgment is an attempt to negate the source of our discomfort.'

I believe the JC's- individually as well as a whole would benefit from counselling. It's only through counsel with those outside the group that the JC's will be seen as a valid group rather than a cult.

Hi Hello,

Yes, I did write about the shadow, well remembered! You are in nostalgia land like me! Do you remember when we asked questions about the money and collateral that the Jesus Christians have, and who owns and controls them, and who pays taxes on the doney money they devote all their working hours to earn? (I understand that some actually claim they are not working, or at least have done so in the past.)

Well here is a really interesting question from a potential Jesus Christian recruit, and it goes right to the nub of the whole thing. It is very pertinent:

[welikejesus.com]

"Also the JC's share their wealth collectively? Meaning that all wealth belongs to all the JC's. Like if I joined the JC's, things that are owned by the JC's also become mine i.e. vans, compounds, bank accounts etc. We all share! Or are you now saying that only selected JC's own and control wealth/property in the community? And if this is the norm, then that is conflictive of sharing wealth/property collectively as The Bible instructs us to do. Equality just became selective equality."

I look forward to reading the replies he gets.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2008 08:55PM by Blackhat.

Blackhat married to Private Eyes…a CIA operative?


The Good Shepherd (Movie 2006) recast 2008 version:


Private Eyes in the role of Edward Wilson: “You are never to tell anyone what it is that I do! “

Blackhat playing Clover Wilson: “What you do? I don't know what you do! You leave at five; you're home at ten, seven days a week! I live with a ghost! I don't know anything about you!”

Dr. Fredericks to Mr. Wilson:

The very qualities that make a good intelligence officer: a suspicious mind, a love of complexity and detail, are the very qualities of someone you've been observing. The mental facility to detect conspiracies and betrayal are the same qualities most likely to corrode natural judgment. Everything that seems clear is bent and everything that seems bent is clear. Trapped in reflections you must learn to recognize when a lie masquerades as the truth. And then deal with it efficiently, dispassionately.

You make a good Mother, PE, but DM makes a crappy Ulysses. Oh well, it's only a movie...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2008 01:16AM by zeuszor.

Quote
Blackhat

Well here is a really interesting question from a potential Jesus Christian recruit, and it goes right to the nub of the whole thing. It is very pertinent:

[welikejesus.com]

"Also the JC's share their wealth collectively? Meaning that all wealth belongs to all the JC's. Like if I joined the JC's, things that are owned by the JC's also become mine i.e. vans, compounds, bank accounts etc. We all share! Or are you now saying that only selected JC's own and control wealth/property in the community? And if this is the norm, then that is conflictive of sharing wealth/property collectively as The Bible instructs us to do. Equality just became selective equality."

I look forward to reading the replies he gets.

So here is how it went:

1. Dave created a thread called Thoughts/questions from potential members. He wrote "Just starting this for someone who is thinking about becoming a JC, but anyone can post here with their own questions and thoughts about what it might mean to become a JC."

2. The question I quoted earlier was asked.

3. The reply from Jeremy: "Please understand Al, that it's a bit much for you to be pointing out what the bible instructs us to do regarding wealth sharing, when you have yet to throw in your literal 2 cents."

I think that just about sums it up!

[www1.whdh.com]

My God. Has anybody else here seen this Boston report on Jayme's donation?

Click on "watch this video" to view. It will not let you download, either.

Look at about 1:37 into it. Jeremy doesn't look so good. He looks like he's stoned or something.

I can't disagree with what he says about the single life being the preferred life for one who wants to follow God. After all, that's what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7.

But what about the parts of the Bible pertaining to false teachers?

A human-interest puff piece from Boston. Instead of "The Kidney Cult" she calls the JCs "The Kidney Club."

Congratulations to Jayme and Laureta. I hope that both of you are well.

I still have not seen "Body and Soul." My connection to the Internet is not so good. Good enough to upload stuff to YouTube, but for some reason not good enough to view the Australian video. I read the transcript, but would like to see faces and hear vocal tones. I'll see it someday though.

[welikejesus.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2008 02:47AM by zeuszor.

Dave responds to a point put to him by the Quakers:http://welikejesus.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=19927#19927

Question 1. How does your belief that you have divine authority fit with the Quaker belief that there is that of God in everyone? Each Quaker equally may experience a leading from the divine light within, which they would then take to their local meeting seeking discernment.

”…. I would like to ask the committee. where they got the idea that Cherry and I believe we have divine authority in the first place, because it is not a strong Jesus Christian teaching. In fact, to my knowledge, it is referred to in only one of more than 500 articles posted on our web site. It was an article that was written shortly after an unsuccessful attempt was made to vote me out of the Jesus Christians so that someone else could take over as leader.

… Thankfully, Friends don't resort to the "authority" of the local meeting much, just as I don't push my authority as a leader of the Jesus Christians very much. But it's there if needed in a crisis, isn't it? So isn't it ironic that this question hints at Quakers using their divine authority to discipline me in some way for claiming that I have divine authority.”

It’s interesting that Dave tries to slip “Cherry and I” into the claim of “divinely anointed apostle”. There is no hint of power sharing in the article he refers to… but that might be because he is trying to relate his autocratic power with the more democratic authority of an elected Quaker committee, and he thinks if he changes his singular “I’s” to a more PC “we” it might carry something approaching an equivalence.

It’s curious that Dave says he only claimed this authority after an unsuccessful attempt was made to “vote” him out.

Putting aside the spurious nature of such a claim… If Dave was to claim his role of leader within the JCs is one of democratic consensus he would not need to claim special “anointing” entitling him to rule with a “rod of iron”, and the fact that he followed up the arbitrary expulsion of half the community with these claims is revealing as to the true nature of what occurred.

Tyrants and despots will speak of representing the will of the people and may even hold elections, with the idea that if they win the majority vote they can claim to be democratically elected. But when they fear losing that mandate, then their real basis for power and true nature is revealed.

I am sure there is a quote or two on the JC forum about seeing the true character of a man based on what he would do when he thinks he can get away with it, or when it is actually going to cost him to live by his principles.

The fact, that even Dave admits to, is when he thought he had lost consensus, he abandoned all notions of democratic accountability. That one article represents the bottom line which underscores all the other rhetoric nonsense about being subject tot he same grievance procedures which he manipulates to keep others in line.

Correct me if I've read this wrong. McKay has an article on his (Lisa's) website in which he actually admits to circumventing the democratic process so as to hold absolute authority? So is McKay the JC equivalent to the pope? Does he maintain that he is somehow infallible? That is certainly what it is sounding like. Also, I noticed another chink in JC philosophy. I will post it here:

[QUOTE="[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christian"[/url];]
Jesus (not the Bible) is the Word of God. Although holy writings may be inspired, they are all fallible.[/QUOTE]

This is called a double standard. Most accreditted theologians would concede that what we know about Jesus and his teachings come primarily from the Bible. However, if the Bible is fallible, then what is written regarding Jesus and his teachings is equally fallible. If this is true, then nobody should even consider trying to follow those teachings.

Conversely, if the Bible is infallible (as most mainline churches believe), then the record of Jesus and his teaching are infallible. Such being the case, they can and should be put into practice, though it would be foolish to take it to an unhealthy degree.

It might be interesting to note, though, that either of the options that I have presented really only give good argument as to why the JC community should consider disbanding, at least temporarily, and going home to thier respective families and take the time to mull over thier experiences and look at scripture for themselves and consider how well what they are doing really lines up with it. Christianity does not demand that we "check our brains at the door". The true Christian faith is a reasoned faith in which the believer understands what they believe and why. Perhaps that is what repulses McKay about the mainline churches.