Jesus Christians.com

I want to say thank you Dave for this comment.

The major difference between Peter and you seems to be that Peter can see his problem and is working on it, whereas you cannot. Now THAT (according to theology 101, if you like) is a far more accurate measure of a person's spiritual worth than how much theology they can spout.



It made me feel a lot better about contuing to post because i do feel ashamed of my spelling.Also it makes me want to make an effort to do better in my spelling and grammer.

I'm glad that God doesn't judge us by our frailties.I'm also glad that people here are willing to look past
faults and see inside the person who is posting.Some problems are eassier to spot than others but they can also be eassier to fix than others.So I will work on myself and pray for God to help me accecpt gudiance and learn from it.Hope others see that they can have problems and still are a valueable person to God.Your witness could be how you handle a problem and how you overcome it through praying and accepting advice from other Christians.

That could help and isnpire someone else to overcome their weakness.A perfect person can't always identify with the common man and his issues.whereas someone who has overcome something might be eassier to talk to and able to support.littlerose could choose to accpet her problems and still participate trusting people to give her a signal when she is going a stray instead of thinking they mean insults or put downs.

Anyone can see that littlerose has the ability to communcate on a higher level but so could the Pharisees talk big and fancy and they were not doing God's will. it's up to littlerose to choose if she wants to accept guidence to help her stay on the path.It doesn't matter how fancy you talk if what you say hurts people and attepts to knock them off their walk with God. the bible apeaks against ever knocking a brother or sister off there Christian walk.When a fellow Christian does that,it woulnt be pleasing to God no matter how smart your words are if they are laced with meanness,spite and meant to hurt then the words are destructive and evil.

but there is no shame in admiting you need a hand in some areas and you can offer a hand in areas you are strong in.littlerose could choose to accept that she has a bad temper or that she can be irrational when she is angry.And insted of attacking Dave he could be a quiet lighthouse that could show her the way.but that is up to her.

Romans 14:13 , "Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way."

SimonJM wrote:

[...]

Littlerose has called me a liar, so here are the things I could find on Rick Ross, where dsm was posting until she was banned. Most of her posts seem to have been removed, but here is some stuff that is still there. It is evidence that I am not lying about what she said on that forum....

Page 437:


dsm:
That is not just my opinion that the cult has terror links, those are indeed the links themselves.
I believe that McKay may be using some back-channel method to filter vulnerable personalities into the jihadists' cults, which are known to pay bounties to the families of their jihad "martyrs".

dsm, Page 438:
Can you explain those links? They are a profile of terrorist activity. It is not my opinion, it is right there in plain sight.

If it were only my opinion, then you could provide an alternative explanation for those links.

So far, not ONE person has been able to do that. Every single person who has defended the McKay cult against my assertion that this is indeed a terrorist cult has limited himself to demanding that I be silenced. No one has offered any other explanation for those links.

[...]

That reference is to links to websites online, Simon, asking repeatedly for explanation as to why those links exist. I posted those links, too, and I was showing in other statements that the question of "terrorism" has to do with instilling fear in innocent and un-involved people. I did not say Dave and J-C's are involved in Jihad.

The question of attack and intimidation of innocent people comes up in regard to this cult in many ways, all of them terrorist-oriented because they step outside the normal control of people who choose to challenge each other.

Someone in this game, in which Ross's goons appear to be supporting McKay's control, is being used to keep Trevor in fear by posing as "trevorsmother" ("she" has shown up again in postings and is blocked, Brian)

Ross, who is a militant anti-Christian Jew, plays the role of wolf outside herding the stray sheep directly into the killing jaws of other members of this pack while Dave's wolves-disguised-as-sheep pull the prize lambs further into hiding.

That is how they got Joe. Ross inflamed Joe's family to overt murderous assault giving the Jesus Christians reasonable motive to put Joe fully under their control and "protection" and now they are doing the same to Trevor, via the fake game with "Trevorsmother". Whose obscenities exactly match Brian's other aliases.

Dave McKay defended Brian zealously against his own son, repeatedly.


Because that is how this bloodthirsty monster plays his games, and his son reflects him, co-operating with the Crofts division of RRI to drive the recruits further and further into his father's control.

Waco. Branch Davidians. Burned Alive. That was Rick Ross's work, and Rick Ross is expert at choosing the right deranged cult leaders out of the hundreds available around the world, grooming them to create more Waco massacres, something for which he and his gov't supporters are bloodthirsty and ravenous to see. They all got addicted at Waco and they need a fix. Dave McKay is willing to help them get it.





Ross's targets fit one profile: Christian end-timers. Ross knows how to use American cultural violence as cover while his team pushes all the sheep into place.

Dave McKay knows this and consciously co-operates.

I'm just curious. Does anyone know if Denise has been banned on the other two sites? I could well imagine that she would be the only person able to unite all of us!

Please refer to our thread about calling someone a fool (Matthew 5:22 , I think.) We have found that often when people have no better defence to offer for a criticism, they stoop to just calling the other person crazy. I've done it myself, and I'm sorry about it. Do you think you could take a more mature attitude toward our differences too, Rob?

I stumbled across this quote in a very interesting thread that came up in a google search.

The google search was on a completely unfamiliar nic that started posting to me on another site, another carrot/stick recruitment attempt related to this strange triangular cult conflict between the J-C's, the ex-J-C's, and the RRI.

As far as I am concerned, you all are working one game but much the same way different armies in a war are working one game while shooting at each other.

Dave, consider your continued attacks on the mental health of people whose families face threats, and if you don't recognize that quote of your own words, it is in the long discussion of Brian & the dossier harassment: "Brian's Payback".

Keep calling me names, but recognize that indeed even if you started out as an honest Christian leader, something has happened to cause you to be the mirror image of your enemy (which, as a Christian, would be Satan, but in temporal terms you, Nick, and Ross all mirror each other in your tactics and hate)

You need to read that thread, Dave, because you were more clear-headed in it and you recognized what Brian is doing, leading the cult to "implode".


That is Rick Ross Institute's specialty. They accomplished it completely at Waco. It takes years of hounding and surrounding a group to more or less enforce "cult" status on it, both in terms of public perception and also in terms of how the group dynamics begin to change. Natural self-protectiveness becomes important but then turns to paranoid lifestyle and then, the professionals get to force the implosion.

Consider the facts Dave: even if I were delusional, a nicname on a message to me would not have turned up your thread listing all the participants in this deadly conspiracy if that person were a figment of my delusion.

You would do well to review Gandhi's teachings on ahimsa and satyagraha and consider the degree to which making war on individuals you perceive as enemies has forced you into your enemies' image.

You are a cult leader of a very destructive cult now, Dave, even if you did not start out to be, but your cult is part and parcel of Rick Ross's cult: you both are co-operating with each other to terrorize, enslave, and ultimately kill the innocent people who have fallen into your path.

Rick knows what he is doing. He is leading and manipulating a team of killers, Brian chief among them. I don't think you know what you are doing Dave because you seem to have a short attention span.

But the words opening this post are your words. And the thread in which you posted them is chock-full of details about the conspiracy that your family has faced for years, and that you are calling me mentally ill for saying that this is the same group that murdered my neighbors here in Texas, and that made another try on another communal group a couple years ago.

I don't give a damn what happens to you assholes in Australia. I am being affected, as I told you I was before my first post here, by attacks on my family just because your friend Brian is on a roll and he still works for your friend Rick Ross. I am not going to sit still and let you assholes make a game of killing innocent people just because you think that in America you can get away with it. I am counting the attack on Reinhardt as one of YOURS, Dave, because I can see how you have been thrilled by violence you now exploit.

Hi Peter,

I don't think it's a matter of you being slow or whatever. I think most people are probably finding it difficult to keep up with what is happening on this thread.

it seems we've got a whole plethora of mental disorders all reacting and bouncing off one another these days. It's like they all try to out do each other or something. One person shares a conspiracy link and then another person is sure that link isn't really real at all, but just another part of an even more twisted conspiracy and then another person could swear those first two people are working together on some even deeper conspiracy while the second person starts to wonder if the third person's reaction is just a bluff to hide that he and the first person are secretly working together which makes the first person think the third person is probably working on a quadruple bluff with the second person etc...

Anyway,

I think it is interesting that, for a time, we had a fairly nice honeymoon with littlerose. She was making some great contributions and even in places where there was disagreement theologically, we were still able to get along.

Littlerose has said that she was performing some kind of infiltration job on this forum right from the very beginning, but I'm not so sure about that. It looked to me like she was genuinely sharing and enjoying herself.

But then this melt down happened as a result of Dave sharing his thoughts about a grievance between little rose and Peter. Dave pointed out that he felt the greater fault in the situation was with little rose for reacting and jumping to conclusions about Peter supposedly insulting her. The evidence of what was said also indicated this, although there is rarely a situation where one party is totally right. It's good when the party with lesser responsibility accepts that there was a better way to handle the situation, but the main focus should be on the party with the greater responsibility.

Grievance meetings are meant to be there as a fair and rational way for two parties to express their hurts and neutral witnesses to mediate what they feel is the most fair resolution.

It's not clear what we should do when there is indication that one of those parties is not mentally able to handle correction (although it seems that littlerose's main problem was not correction in itself, but correction about expressing her paranoia in a hurtful way towards others).

It's difficult to know how to communicate with someone who only gets along with you on the basis that you don't touch on sensitive issues( i.e. mental health). It's a kind of emotional blackmail where the reasoning is like, "We can be friends as long as you don't say such and such. If you ever do then I'll turn on you, too!". But what happens when that person hurts someone else as a direct result of that sensitive issue?

I think at that point it becomes a conscience issue for JC's rather than just trying to "get along" or "agreeing to disagree".

I'm only going to say this once, Denise. If you start calling people killers on this thread, you will be banned permanently. Craig tried that angle and he is no longer welcome here. Disagree all you like, but that kind of slander is definitely out of bounds, whether it is me, Brian, Kevin, or whoever. As far as I can tell there is good reason to believe that Rick Ross (because of Waco) is prepared to see people die at the hands of others if he can so manipulate things that way, and Sheila falls into that category as well. But these other people, for all their disagreements with me, are not killers, and should not be called such. Call it a conspiracy between Brian and me (or anyone else), but those are the rules. Such slander is against the law, and will not be allowed here.

You are pro-actively assisting Rick Ross and his goons to set up your own group as another Waco, Dave. You are an accessory to whatever Ross does to your group because you have obviously NOT availed yourself of legal protection to put a stop. You have misinformed and misled your members to think they can't do anything at all.

And a lot of what you are doing, including all those private threatening emails that you think cannot be traced back to you & your cohorts, is very illegal.

You may have the best old-age pension of all the J-C's because prison is actually not so bad compared to what you have planned for them as soon as they cease to be useful to you.

I have no problems with that post, Denise (as far as whether or not to ban you). You can talk about all kinds of perceived conspiracies if you like. Just don't accuse anyone of being murderers if you don't want to end up in trouble with the law yourself, okay?

In fact, I kind of like the theory about me working with Rick Ross to set up another Waco situation where Rick will get the FBI (or perhaps an Australian version of the FBI) to attack us and kill us all. I'm sure Rick would find it rather comical as well, suggesting that I might actually be the mastermind behind my own execution!

Anyway, like I said, feel free to share such theories. Just try to keep the insults (and especially slander) down, okay?

SimonJM wrote:
[quote]

dsm:
That is not just my opinion that the cult has terror links, those are indeed the links themselves.
I believe that McKay may be using some back-channel method to filter vulnerable personalities into the jihadists' cults, which are known to pay bounties to the families of their jihad "martyrs".

dsm, Page 438:
Can you explain those links? They are a profile of terrorist activity. It is not my opinion, it is right there in plain sight.

If it were only my opinion, then you could provide an alternative explanation for those links.

So far, not ONE person has been able to do that. Every single person who has defended the McKay cult against my assertion that this is indeed a terrorist cult has limited himself to demanding that I be silenced. No one has offered any other explanation for those links.


Oh wow! We are terrorrists rying to recruit people for an Islamic jihad!! That is SO funny (I would be ROFL if I wasn't at an internet cafe!!). What is confusing though is that the recruits families are paid a 'bounty'. Does that mean that it is actually JC members FAMILIES who are working with Dave to have us all 'channeled' into the jihad (i.e. anyone anywhere, who has a family member who is 'vulnerable' will receive a 'bounty' if they hand over the vulnerable person to Dave?

To be fair, Denise has now been banned and cannot respond in her own defence. However, I will say in her defense that it seems to be part of the particular mental disorder that she has that she cannot stay with a single line of thought when she starts expressing her paranoia. Names and situations swap all over the place between any number of different characters, so that one minute we are the terrorists, then the next minute it is the people who are fighting us who are the terrorists, and then it may even become the families of members who are the terrorists. I found when I tried to have a chat with Denise about the obituary she says someone sent to her, that she could not complete a single thought without jumping, almost mid-sentence to something else, and I was expected to piece it all together to come up with little more than a theory about what it was that she was trying to say. And, as noted in something she has posted recently, she saw it all as unrefutable evidence to me that she had proven something.