Quote
Dave McKay
Hi Rick,

I do not like being attacked personally on the basis of subjective evidence, and so I do not wish to attack you (or Graham Baldwin) in such a way. As you yourself so often emphasise, there is a need for objective evidence to back up claims.

There is objective evidence to back up my claims that the initial three-page spread in the Guardian on the Bobby Kelly 'kidnapping' came from Graham Baldwin, and that it has become the basis for just about everything else said against us in the media ever since.



Dave McKay, for Jesus Christians

Some evidence of selective recall syndrome in these claims, begs correction.

The Guardian article was not the first expose of DM's little group. There were others in Australia that predate the Guardian.

The Guardian article did not form the basis for everything else said against the group in the media ever since. His own live interview on GMTV with Eamon Holmes earned him no respect.

Jon Ronson's expertly researched and very balanced documentary was conducted after the Guardian article and DM filmed some of it himself.

In both cases the 'objective evidence' was provided by the group and DM himself. Both attempts to gain positive media coverage failed.

Hey Muppet (or was that puppet?), here's your chance to say something specific. You say that all of this stuff was negative. How about if you hit me right now with the absolute most damning and provable evidence against me or the Jesus Christians... right here... right now. Your chance to tell the world.

Just saying that you saw a bunch of stuff that made us look bad doesn't really let the rest of the readers know what it was. You see, on the whole, the media has to answer legally for stuff that they print, and so mostly what they do is rely on innuendo. It's not nice, but viewed up close, it has no substance.

The one exception was the Guardian's claim that we kidnapped Bobby Kelly. THAT was what I was getting at. We never kidnapped Bobby, and no charges were ever laid. It was all a beat-up from the start. We had written permission from Bobby's grandmother from the start, and his grandmother was actually instructed NOT to even tell us that she had changed her mind. She was coaxed into signing papers to make Bobby a ward of the state because she had been convinced by Graham Baldwin that she would never see Bobby alive again unless she did exactly as he told her. She apologised for that later... but it was too late.

So go on, tell us the worst statement that was there in the media, apart from the lie about us kidnapping Bobby. And then let me squirm!

quote="Dave McKay"]Hey Muppet (or was that puppet?), here's your chance to say something specific. You say that all of this stuff was negative. [/quote]



Yes it was negative overall . and Ronson had exclusive access to your group over a long period of time. [www.jonronson.com]

Perhaps we have missed the objective positive reports, if they exist, in the media or elsewhere, so here is your chance to correct that. Provide us with the links to documentaries, newspaper articles or interviews that are positive.

Details of your 'charitable works'

Provide some positive testimonies about you and your group from your ex members or associates. Avoid inventing a persona as you did when you assumed the name Anita in order to cause a furore of press coverage for your group.

You claim to follow and exemplify the teachings of Jesus. who preached and lived a life of love, compassion and forgiveness, yet, to understate the point, there is nothing that exemplifies these traits in anything we have seen or heard about you so far.

No amount of accusations levelled against the mother of your underage recruit in India can justify your actions in India. The claim that you secured a signed permission statement from a grandmother in the UK, does not justify you hiding the youngster later.

History equates corporal punishment and 'star chambers' with dictatorships and abusive regimes. Here is your chance to correct all that 'negative stuff' and provide us with an alternative.

In this thread there has been testimony from a friend, a member, an ex-member and the alleged "guru" of the Jesus Christians himself. This evidence is harmonious and I think it ought to be clear that there is more to the Jesus Christians than the negative stuff.

Every movement within Christianity (and indeed the broader world) that seeks to reform or establish a "purer" alternative to an established church has started in this manner-- consider the Anabaptists, the Puritans, the Quakers, not to mention the mainstream Reformers.

Any modern Christian who thinks the state of Christendom at the moment is such that it doesn't require reform or a "purer" alternative I fear has their head in the sand.

The Jesus Christians may do some loony things, but these are mental times and perhaps mental times call for mental measures. This whipping thing is indeed mental but it doesn't make me want to ignore the rest of the cool stuff the JCs say and do. Their basic teachings and lifestyle, though, in principle are no more lunatic than the early church: so far as I can tell they forsake Mammon, hold things in common, believe in direct and personal charity to people in need as well as donations to international charities, doing unpleasant jobs for society that no-one else wants to do (like in India, where I believe the JCs worked on the ancient sewage system!).

Jesus very definitely had sharp words for people in the position of the rich young ruler and the Pharisees. I think if we can't see that we in the West are in that position then we seriously need to consider our relationship with Christ.

None of the actual evidence-- nothing other than the opinion of people who haven't met them at all or any other direct experience-- suggests that the JCs are "dangerous". They are extreme, for sure, but they are extremely sincere about following Jesus. How is this bad? It's abundantly clear that it's Jesus they are following and not Dave. The yammering on about his alleged links with the Family (what was it, Dave, three months in the seventies or something like that??) makes it clear that there's very little ACTUAL reason to suppose the JCs to be dangerous.

I personally find the JCs a very attractive group. Their comic "The Liberator" in itself should demonstrate to any sensible Christian that if they are extreme about anything it is Jesus. No-one gets it right 100% of the time and to denounce them because they haven't beggars belief. It's like atheists rejecting Christianity because of the Crusades, or deciding all Christianity is bunk because televangelists are so blatantly fraudulent. Don't worry I am not going to click "submit" and then head off into the night to find them: but I am more than happy to put my hand up and say "I like the Jesus Christians". :-)

I asked you to hit me with your absolute worst (and most provable) accusation against me. This is what you came up with....

It (media coverage) was negative overall... Provide us with the links to documentaries, newspaper articles or interviews that are positive. Details of your 'charitable works'. Provide some positive testimonies... there is nothing (in your life) that exemplifies (love, compassion, etc.) in anything we have seen or heard about you so far... History equates corporal punishment with dictatorships.

Sorry puppet, but you failed!

Dave:

You still have not answered questions on the other thread.

And calling muppet names isn't very "Christ-like."

Flaming people is also against the rules at this board.

Quote
jinnythesquinny
In this thread there has been testimony from a friend, a member, an ex-member and the alleged "guru" of the Jesus Christians himself. This evidence is harmonious and I think it ought to be clear that there is more to the Jesus Christians than the negative stuff.)

[

No jinnythesquinny it is not clear. No one has posted any evidence to refute the negatives and DM himself has admitted his groups role in the disappearance of a young Indian girl, a young ward of the state from Liverpool, his intention to hold a secret trial in California, his intention to prescribe corporal punishment for those he finds guilty. Nothing 'ccol' abiut it.

Hi Rick,

You don't give up, do you? You ignore repeated requests for hard evidence of all of the 'flaming' stuff that goes up here about me/us, and a simple typographical error (puppet as opposed to muppet) gets me a warning that I am flaming someone on this site... well, flaming someone who agrees with you. Is that a double standard or what?

No, Rick, I have no intention of letting you call the shots with one question after another. The truth is that your question didn't make any sense anyway... it was totally unintelligible and completely ignored all that I had said in a fairly lengthy posting before that. Whenever someone says, "I demand that you answer my questions," I usually shut up. It's childish in the extreme. I am not corresponding with you at the moment because you have made some kind of a demand and I have no choice; so don't start pretending that that is our relationship.

You want to be treated with respect, then start treating others with respect as well.

Hi Muppet.... That is your real name, isn't it? I wouldn't want to be guilty of calling you anything except your real name, and God help us if there is anyone on this web site who is hiding behind some false name!

Anyway, Muppie (Can I call you Muppie?), every one of your accusations is a misrepresentation of what has already appeared on this site. Rather than repeat what has been said about all of them, let me urge you to do everything you can to get them published as far and wide as possible. You see, the bigger the lie, and the more you preach it, the more stupid you look when it is exposed... especially if it becomes clear that you knew the full story when you first started the campaign of deception.

By the way, I like jelly babies, so maybe you can tell people that I eat babies too. It sounds good, and technically there will be some truth in it, which is all it takes to satisfy you and your ilk.