That's it, everybody. He's banned me from his "forum" now. Amazing.

OK, it wasn't working there for several hours and I couldn't get in...but I can now. All I am doing is asking some questions, and all you see is evasiveness; I get called names, people call me crazy, they'll change the subject, dodge the issue, [i:60dc6b91bd]anything and everything except David answering the questions.[/i:60dc6b91bd]

I hope anybody that is reading this and considering joining the Jesus Christians can see how David's true colors, how his deceitful nature is shining through. I hope that any parents of any kids who might be thinking of joining the Jesus Christians throw away that copy of [i:60dc6b91bd]Survivors[/i:60dc6b91bd] that you got in some parking lot or on the street. Hopefully, I can help to prevent somebody else's son or daughter from being mentally kidnapped by these people. David is demonstrating my point for me. The only straight answer I ever got out of him was in response to my question about whether he could ever think of a situation in which he was in the wrong, or an instance in which somebody's criticism of his behavior was valid? His answer was a simple and smug "Yes." No elaboration, no details, no transparency.

He even says so himself:

[welikejesus.com]

Quote

Sorry, Brian, but this is your thread to flame me. Don't expect me to do your work for you.

But you [i:60dc6b91bd]quite are[/i:60dc6b91bd] proving my point for me David. As I have said before, your arrogant attitude that tells you that you do not need to answer questions and account for your behavior is all of the answer anybody with any objectivity needs. Because if you [i:60dc6b91bd]did[/i:60dc6b91bd] allow yourself to be honest and open about your "ministry" and the fruits of it, it would be an ugly picture you'd be painting, huh David? So don't do my work for me by being [b:60dc6b91bd] open and honest![/b:60dc6b91bd] Why would you want to poop in your own front yard, right David?

You have told me that you will not answer my questions because 1) I have been put up to this and am being coached and 2) because I will not believe you or accept any of your answers anyway. What difference does that make; those are both beside the point!

Your responsibility to give me a simple, direct answer to a simple, direct question is Biblically based David. You are the one who says that he is The Divine Authority, not me. This places you on a higher level of accountability. You should welcome scrutiny and jump at the chance to explain yourself, if you have nothing to hide. But you don't seem to understand that. You seem to think you are exempt from that mandate.

Your control is slowly but surely unraveling David. You are just some sad little man in an apartment somewhere with a delusion that you are God's Anointed Apostle, some computer equipment and a sick soul. I am just some guy with time on his hands who is trying to make a contribution that'll prevent people from being further hurt by your influence. I never claimed to be acting and making decisions "under the anointing" of God. You do. So why all the song and dance?

Quote
Dave
Glenn, it's Brian Birmingham who is posting on this thread, not Malcolm. But your point is a good one.

Brian wrote:

Quote

Are you trying to recruit me into your organization?

Brian, would you take it awfully personal if we told you that we really are not all that keen to get you into our organisation?

Not at all David. Likely I would not fit in. You see, this critical-thinking skills demon I am oppressed by would allow me to see through your asinine nonsense and I'd leave after about 15 minutes.

Quote
muppet
Trying to secure a public apology at livingdonorsonline.org where one astute individual suggests that Dave implies some comparison to Jesus.

[www.livingdonorsonline.org]

Here is a short extract from that forum but you do need to read the lot to understand the context.

Dave McKay
Member since 14-Aug-05
103 posts 05-Jan-07, 02:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Dave%20McKay Click to send private message to Dave%20McKay Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list
18. "RE: Finding a donor"
In response to message #17

Shell,

It's interesting that I have simply RESPONDED to critics, rarely writing anything more in my defence than they have written in their criticisms, and yet volunteers keep coming forward to tell ME to shut up, as though I am ranting and raving here.

The truth is that Karol and I have resolved this matter privately. But I really do think that do-gooders like yourself who want to publicly lecture me on shutting up ought to consider the possibility that you are numbering yourselves amongst those who got onto Jesus' case and then thought they could lecture him on what he could or could not say in his own defence. (True, he said nothing at his trial; but he said plenty before that about hypocrites.)

Please get off my back and put the focus back where it should be yourself. I for one am certainly thnakful for the wonderful blessing of Jenna getting a kidney.


Extract from Willie's responses

wlillie
Member since 12-Aug-05
An extract from the responses
In response to message #19

And you might want to think about how you word your posts. The last one sounded an awful lot like you think that you are Jesus.

Here's David's latest comparison off himself to Jesus, in which he says that he will not give me a direct answer to a direct question on the basis of what Jesus said about not casting your pearls before swine (the implication being that I am the swine in David's mind). Read it here:

[welikejesus.com]

Quote

I also respond to a lot of points that you make. You say that Jesus answered questions. But if you look again, whenever the Pharisees asked loaded questions (i.e. questions aimed at trapping him in his words, as the Bible puts it), he usually answered with another question. Jesus told us not to give our pearls to pigs. I hesitate to label anyone with a name like that, but if our pearls are our beliefs, then I think you do have to qualify for the description Jesus gave of people who will "turn on you and rend you" after you answer their questions.

The whole thing could be resolved quickly and amicably David if you would kindly answer these questions in a systematic, direct, and thorough fashion. Thanks for your time, David.
[b:cdcce575cc]

1) Can you think of an instance in which you were in the wrong, or in which somebody's criticism of your behavior was valid?

2) Obviously The Jesus Christians are a controversial group to some people. Please tell me in your own words why ex-members tend to be critical of your group, and what their main objections are?

3) How do you feel about former members of your group? Have you ever sat down to speak with a former member to find out why they left? If not, why not? Does your group impose restrictions on communicating with former members?

4) Do you think that there is anything valid about what any of your critics has to say, or is anybody who questions you simply delusional? How do you account for all of the disgruntled ex-members?

5) Do you believe that in a given situation that the ends justify the means? Is deception allowed in certain circumstances?[/b:cdcce575cc]

This is what David had to say when I was asking him questions under the name Andy ; at that point he thought I was a potential recruit. This was in response to Andy's question to him about why he thought it was OK for his people to deal with kids, minors:

Quote

Dave

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:04 pm

I thought it was great what Andy was saying. It's good that he has had a look at what the opposition is saying, and it seems like he can see through it pretty well.

He says that he can see how Joe's parents would be upset. So can I. Of course, the article doesn't say that Joe left a note, and that he talked with his parents (by phone and email both, I think) while he was away for that week. He knew them well enough to not just front up and say, Hey, I'm going to head out to New Mexico for a week, okay?

As for us communicating with a sixteen year old, Andy, I think you need to ask yourself if anyone else is forbidden to communicate with sixteen year olds, via the internet, via the media, via literature, or just when they bump into them on the streets. If not, then why should we be condemned for communicating with Joe when he was sixteen. Virtually every sixteen year old in America has access to information that their parents would rather they NOT have access to. But parents learn to live with it and work around it. The law may say that they can force him to stay under their roof until he is eighteen (although a lot of police will not bother bringing runaways home after they turn sixteen, because they realise that between sixteen and eighteen the child is starting to make some more independent choices and force can no longer be your primary means of control.) but it does not say that you can force a sixteen year old to stop thinking about anything the parents don't want them to think about.

Joe's contact with us between sixteen and eighteen weas primarily through visiting our website, btw. I think there were only a handful of times when he arranged to meet up with people at fast-food restaurants. He would not even tell us his real name (No joking , he called himself Joe King ) possibly for fear that WE would notify his parents. So he was very much in control of his own thoughts.

Just thought I would clear up those points a bit, because the media always seems to get a few things wrong.

What he says, in other words, is “Well, it’s not my fault if they aren’t paying attention what their kids are up to.” Always somebody else’s fault, always somebody else’s problem with this guy.

Also keep in mind his previous quotes on the subject of pedophilia:

Quote

[welikejesus.com]
Quote:
But a better example is paedophilia. Kids are not FORCED to have sex, and yet society says it is wrong. I know, I know, they are not adults. But you see, we each have our restrictions that we think makes it wrong or doesn't make it wrong. And so what we decided to experiment with is just trying to follow the rules as we honestly and humbly think God wrote them.

Here McKay (leader of the Jesus Christians) is saying that pedophilia does not involve force, and is trying to use this principle as an example of why it's OK for members of his cult to attempt to recruit minors. This guy is getting more and more and more demented.

Dave is a spiritual pedophile, a spiritual pervert. The above quotes provide a window into his demented mind. Maybe it's because young kids' minds are more impressionable and pliable, and therefore they're easier to manipulate. Maybe it's because having destroyed his relationship with his own kids, and now he feels compelled to damage other people's relationships with their kids. I don't know, probably a combination of things.

I hope some kid out there, and/or his or her parents, is reading this, and can make a more informed judgment about what you might be thinking about involving yourself in.

Our discussion has been moved to the Quaker forum. Maybe his friends there will help encourage David to be a little more transparent, and he cannot as easily manipulate things.

[quakers.org.au]

avid I do not recommend, support, condone, or advocate any illegal activity to the end of physical violence to you or anybody else. I do not support any illegal or violent activities to the end of putting an end to you or your people's activities.

Just answer the questions, point by point, and I will go away.

Delete this post
Quote:
I'm sorry, Brian, but we have asked you over and over and over to stop abusing your rights as a member of this forum. In particular, we have asked you to stop making the same posts over and over again, and to respect our right NOT to answer your questions.

You say that if we answer your questions, you will go away. But hey, I just deactivated your account. Do you see how easy it is, if all we want to do is to make you go away? perhaps in a week or so we may give you another chance. In the meantime, you can still post as a guest up to four times a day. If you abuse THAT right, we can block your IP... or just delete the posts.

I'm sorry to have had to do it, Brian, but we do not negotiate with terrorists.


[welikejesus.com]

Calling me a terrorist is loony David. Just answer the questions please.

Now I have been banned from both the JC forum and from the Quaker forum.

Quote

I'm sorry, Brian, but we have asked you over and over and over to stop abusing your rights as a member of this forum. In particular, we have asked you to stop making the same posts over and over again, and to respect our right NOT to answer your questions.

You say that if we answer your questions, you will go away. But hey, I just deactivated your account. Do you see how easy it is, if all we want to do is to make you go away? perhaps in a week or so we may give you another chance. In the meantime, you can still post as a guest up to four times a day. If you abuse THAT right, we can block your IP... or just delete the posts.

I'm sorry to have had to do it, Brian, but we do not negotiate with terrorists.

Why not just answer my questions David? Why so evasive? What are you trying to hide?

All that I ask is that you answer my questions David, point by point.

Then I will go away.

1. Dave says marriage is not really the preferable thing to do and that being single is somehow the better way to be. OK. So why isn't Dave single and why doesn't he seperate from Cherry?

2. Why wasn't Dave the first "JC" to give up a kidney?

3. Is there any group of Christians other than the "Jesus Christians" that Dave would consider Biblically and spiritually the equal of JCs in practice and beliefs? If so what is the name and location of that group?

4) Can you think of an instance in which you were in the wrong, or in which somebody's criticism of your behavior was valid?

5) Obviously The Jesus Christians are a controversial group to some people. Please tell me in your own words why ex-members tend to be critical of your group, and what their main objections are?

6) How do you feel about former members of your group? Have you ever sat down to speak with a former member to find out why they left? If not, why not? Does your group impose restrictions on communicating with former members?

7) Do you think that there is anything valid about what any of your critics has to say, or is anybody who questions you simply delusional? How do you account for all of the disgruntled ex-members?

8 ) Do you believe that in a given situation that the ends justify the means? Is deception allowed in certain circumstances?