Quote
rrmoderator
As some here might recall "PtolemyGlenn" was banned for bad behavior that violated the posted rules. Simply put, he was and is an "Internet troll."

Which means what, Rick? Seriously, what did Glenn do that deserved him to be banned the first time? Will you call me an internet troll too? What do I need to avoid so that I won't be labelled one and be conveniently banned.

Quote

Now "King Tut" is also banned for breaking the rules, which don't allow members to post under more than one name. And also don't allow users that have been banned, to return and post again under another name.

How convenient, and how predictable! :roll:

I think someone said that we JCs are probably not allowed to view this forum and that we have to somehow sneak away to get a glimpse. I find that kind of attitude both comical and sad at the same time.

For starters, as you all know well by now (but conveniently ignore), the JCs are split up into various autonomous teams, which are spread over several countries and several locations even within the same country. So who is going to stop anyone from surfing the net? Seriously! You guys are truly amazing.

Rather, most of us are watching what you guys write, and it continues to have the effect of making us more united and more committed to following the teachings of Jesus. Of course, if you ever come up with an actual postive alternative to the JC way of life, we would be keen to see it. But lies, exaggerations, bitterness, blasphemy, unaccountability, etc. do not inspire me (and probably every other JC) to follow in your footsteps. Neither does it inspire us to post here very often.

Add to that the fact that most of the people who have posted something positive about the JCs have been banned on such weak and vague terms as being an "internet troll". (Someone here really IS a control freak!) Nevertheless, you are all welcome to post on our forum, as guests if nothing else, and you have the freedom there to criticise us in a place where most of us have the chance to respond. However, most of you choose to stay here. Why is that?

I wish you all the best. You all claim to have moved on, despite the fact that you spend so much time trying to run us down. I sincerely hope you do move on, rather than spend your life trying to stop a world-wide group of 30 people from living out their ideals.

Fran:

Internet trolls come to a message board with the purpose of subverting it.

"Ptolemy Glenn"/"King Tut" didn't come here interested in the topics listed and/or an exchange of ideas. He came instead to attack members of the message board that he doesn't like and generally to help Dave McKay in whatever way he can.

And it does seem like that is your purpose is much different, as evidenced by your posts.

"Control freak"?

Dave McKay fits that description, which can be seen by his followers donating kidneys to strangers and/or their willingness to be beaten publicly for his publicity purposes, while wearing t-shirts to promote McKay's Web site.

Critics of David McKay have at times posted at his board, despite the fact that he is a "control freak."

"Living out ideals"?

Doesn't that really mean living according to the ideas of Dave McKay?

For example giving up a kidney to garner him attention or getting a beating on TV to feed his ego?

It certainly doesn't mean following the ideals of the bible.

FYI -- Dave McKay doesn't even meet the minimal standards for leadership set within the New Testament for a deacon, elder or evangelist.

McKay is not generally respected, has had a bad report almost everywhere he goes and his own house is not in order. McKay's own children reject him and his ideas.

The New Testament doesn't seem to be the book Dave McKay goes by.

Perhaps he prefers the writing and ranting of purported "cult leader" Moses David Berg?

Jesus said that you shall know a tree by its fruit.

As you point out there are many former followers of McKay that feel they were hurt by him and only 30 left.

A snippet from David McKay's latest rant

[i:110df103e4]I have asked you guys to stop making that slanderous accusation under threat of reporting the theft to the police myself, and, so help me God, the next time you do it, I WILL report it, and too bad to any who were involved in the theft.[/i:110df103e4]
SOURCE: [welikejesus.com]

David McKay once again grabs a couple of uninvolved hostages and threatens us that he is going to harm them if we do not stop criticising him.

Another grievance to add to the growing list.

[b:110df103e4]37. David often times takes innocent people hostage and uses them to try and silence critics of his "honest to whom" doctrine.[/b:110df103e4]

It is interesting how Dave trys to make it look like "God" is going to help him do what HE is threatening to do to his hostages. A bit like a raving Islamic fundamentalist shouting "Allah Hu Akba" before cutting off a head on camera.

A message to David: David do whatever YOU plan to do Don't attribute your actions to be the result of help received from a God of love. We are not that stupid.

[www.youtube.com]

New blood joins this (cult) earth
and quikly he's subdued
through constant pain disgrace
the young boy learns their rules
with time the child draws in
this whipping boy done wrong
deprived of all his thoughts
the young man struggles on and on he's known
a vow unto his own
that never from this day
his will they'll take away
what I've felt
what I've known
never shined through in what I've shown
never be
never see
won't see what might have been
what I've felt
what I've known
never shined through in what I've shown
never free
never me
so I dub thee unforgiven

Dear Fran,

It is of course a pleasure to hear directly from members of the Jesus Christians....'twas little ol' I that suggested members of the JCs are not free to either peruse or to contribute to this site....I am pleased to be corrected. No doubt we will hear more from you...

Does this also mean that the JC's value the wider freedoms of Speech, Association and Movement and that you DO NOT routinely read the personal mail of members, "vet" the relationships of new members with external figures (e.g. Joe Johnson and his wider family), "demonize" those who are no longer members (with blanket accusations of "bitterness" with the covert intent to discredit the validity of any observations they subseqently make of you, require members to be "accompanied" when they interact with figures outside the Jesus Christians, etcetera, etc). I would welcome you putting down in writing on this site that is no longer the case....clearly then I will have misjudged and will be obliged to tender my apologies (once this new state of affairs is independantly verified by the next ex-member you produce, to speak out publically on....!)

We have never personally met but no doubt you have heard references to me....in reply to your query as to why I don't engage in the wider "conversation" on your own web-site (obviously I cannot speak for everyone, several regular contributors here do in fact particpate in your forum), perhaps I could make mention a small matter but one that I yet think epitomizes my hesitation, to "engage" further with you.

For the past twenty years, David has christened me with the "amusing" moniker of "malcontent" in both word and writing (Dehumanizing your "enemies" is of course an old pyschological tactic employed by the military). No doubt this has also brought some merriment to you, as well. The latest example of this may seen in Ross's posting in "Articles" dated January, this year.

Do you think that the deliberate use of "taunts" to antagonize others is an appropriate level of debate for your website (Simple minds being amused by simple things????) Could you explain why I would want to "legitimize" (by being seen to participate in) a web-site that from the very outset, sets out to engage in the cheapest denigration it can of me, personally...

....and were the "tables to be turned" FRAN-kenstein (i.e. you were once human until the good "Doctor" (even if he admittedly looks more Igor!) made you into the monster you've become), would you continue to be part of the dialogue therein?

I think not FRAN-kenstein. You might concur such behaviour merits only the deepest contempt and refuse to associate yourself at all with it... then FRAN-kenstein you might have an inkling of how I and many others feel!!

When you are finally officially recorded on the JesusChristians' website, taking David to task on this, his endless vilification, of all and sundry then and being prepared to risk your "membership" to do so, then you'll have some credibility!! Otherwise.....


(Oh, and I've always wondered....do the bolts in the neck "spark" if you accidentally put your finger in an electrical socket???)

No David,

Craig Hendry, whoever he was, did not work for the members of the Jesus Christians while in India, he worked for God, the very God you instruct all your members to state they are "working for" when asked about sources of income or oganizational structure....and those who collected revenue, from the "litnessing" efforts at the time, did not support Craig in his work, God did.

Those who distributed literature, at that time, of course, worked for "love" with no thought of where the money might eventually be directed....please at least keep your lies consistent.

(.....and at the same time, go to Hell with your hypocrisy)!



P.S.

Who is this "Craig" guy? I want to be him whoever he is....don't you think he would use the name "Malcolm Wesley Wrest" (knowing how much I was hated by the JC's) as an ID, I mean it would be the perfect disguise for him....of course that's it! I'm really "Craig".......but don't tell David anyone, will you!!

[b:bdad4955ab]For those who cannot access the JC forum to view Dave's latest idiocy, and under request from another member of this forum to post it entoto here for all to gaze upon the below is from the man himself.[/b:bdad4955ab]

**********************************************************


Every week or so, the list of accusations from the Rick Ross forum gets updated and a bit more embellished. Craig has done the honours of re-stating them for us, and I thought that it should be seen here, so we can kind of document the Chinese whispers that these guys are experimenting with in an effort to whip up hysteria where no grounds exist for any of it.

Let me first say something about Craig. There is actually an article about him on our website, called Courage. I admire him for his courage. I have also complimented him for never being lukewarm. When he left the JCs, he became totally opposed to God and Jesus, and even started a website to express his anger. The Bible says that God would rather have us hot or cold, but not lukewarm. So that's another good point about Craig.

But I have to say that I have met very few people who are more dishonest than Craig. He will lie to you as soon as look at you. That includes the time he went to the newspapers in Melbourne and told the media that Cherry and I were abusing the rights of refugees at Woomera. He succeeded in getting the paper to print quite a big article (along with Craig's picture spread over several columns) stating that legal action was being taken against me. Total rubbish. Pure, unadulterated lies. But still today, people believe it, because they read it in the Melbourne Age; and it has hampered Cherry and me in every effort we have made to help refugees since that time.

Craig has dishonestly extended the lie that Apostate is not Tony Barry, by taking over Tony's username and password on the Rick Ross site as well and claiming that he has been the one using it all the time, and that Tony has never posted, either here or on the Rick Ross forum. Total rubbish, and he knows it.

And he continues to promote the lie that the Jesus Christians in general and that I in particular am promoting murder in the name of Jesus, pedophilia, theft, fraud, in fact just about everything short of cannibalism (and I expect that'll turn up somewhere along the line eventually).

This is obviously not someone who is interested in the truth. It is someone who is still (nine years after leaving the Jesus Christians) waging a worldwide vendetta against myself and the Jesus Christians. Kind of makes you wonder what really is behind it.

Craig says (to Glenn):
Quote:
It is good that you have spoken to Dave about Loving his enemies; so he has changed his position on targetted killing ... has he?


Then he says:
Quote:
So Glenn, the testimony of witnesses is not considered "hard" enough evidence for you? Witnesses have testifed of welfare fraud, thefts, and continuing abusive behaviour within the group.


Bear in mind, folks, that these are the same guys who are searching the world for false witnesses to agree on some contrived charge against me, that they can use to take to court. Why would they have to do that if they themselves are such reliable "witnesses" as he says? Because they are FALSE witnesses, and so far they have not been able to find anyone with enough courage to even use their real name on the INTERNET (where it is so easy to falsely slander anyone you choose), so how would they ever convince a court?

Craig says:
Quote:
Many people now know of what really goes on inside that little cult. Seeing that this is really the first opportunity many of the ex members have ever had to express themselves you are being hyper critical to judge us all as being bitter.

Nine years, with a police station in every suburb and this is "the first time" they have had the opportunity to express themselves? Craig, are you really so helpless that you needed ME to instigate a stage for you to spread your lies?

Craig says:
Quote:
I agree with Malcolm that projects which involved the helping of others, such as the one I was involved in India were worthy projects; but Dave soon pulled that apart in favour of "getting back to basics" by replacing such ventures with revenue building doney distributing.


Craig, you were involved in spending tens of thousands of dollars for that project in India, but it was on the backs of a lot of other lackeys that you achieved your glory. Jesus Christians around the world were distributing literature, which raised the revenue to boost your ego. But when it came your turn to distribute some literature to help those who were left in India, you and others baulked at it. So when you start making accusations about the "revenue" that comes in from donations for the literature, don't forget to tell the world who SPENT those revenues, and it wasn't Dave... nor is it Dave today.

Then Craig gives a summary, just in case his earlier account was not dishonest enough, kind of embellishing the embellishments that came at the start of his post to Glenn:
Quote:
Glenn, the JC group forum you defend attacks ex JC females simply because they are Indians, other females because they did not want their child sleeping in a room full of adult males, it justifies killing for Christ, it brags about whipping African volunteers for "sins" committed against the group, it defends past welfare fraud, and states the peadophillic actions against children involves no force.


Okay, Craig, the forum is here for you to quote from. I know that you have lifted a sentence here and a phrase there to create the false claims you make about what we "do". But every single one of the accusations listed above is a lie. If the JC group (i.e. all of the JCs) officially attacks ex-JC females simply because they are Indians, I would assume there is some official statement here, endorsed by (if not written by) me, and applauded by others, stating that ex-JC females should be attacked simply because they are Indian. But you know that there is nothing of the kind. It's one big lie. If you really had evidence to support such a horrendous claim, you could take us to court here in Australia for racism. But you know it is total rubbish, and you knew it when you said it.

The same (the rubbish charge) would be true about some official statement attacking females (Was that all females, or just a few?) who do not want their children sleeping in a room with adult males. You see, any time anyone on this forum expresses a disagreement over some opinion issue, it does not give you the right to claim some doctrine is being taught (and slavishly supported by all members). It is a lie when you keep doing that, which is the case with all of these lies.

Where does it justify killing for Christ? Where does it brag about whipping African volunteers? (How many are we talking about, btw, and how often do they get whipped? Like do we line them up each morning and whip them before breakfast, and then applaud?) Where is any evidence of welfare fraud even taking place, much less being defended? You know yourself that I spoke personally with the Commonwealth head of the Department of Social Security in the front room of our house in Medowie, after he flew to Newcastle specificaly to discuss our activities, and that he concluded that we had done nothing wrong. But, hey, Craig Hendry knows better, doesn't he?

Craig writes (to Glenn):
Quote:
I would encourage to join the group to better gain an understanding of how it works, as it seems you do not believe the account of ex members.

Great advice, Craig. But that too is a lie, in that you and all of your friends at the Rick Ross forum are damning Glenn even BEFORE he has even met us, much less joined us. The Rick Ross instructions are to ask them how close they are to the JCs. If they seem too close, you condemn them as biased, and if they are not very close, then you condemn them as ill-informed and naive. Glenn has seen it for himself.

Then he talks about apologies:
Quote:
Dave simply refuses to acknowledge that he made any. Is the indigenous population of Australia simply expressing bitterness by wanting to hear an apology from the Australian government, and as such can be discounted?

Craig, of course, would almost certainly know about the public apology I posted a few years ago; but once again, I know that in my dealings with him I am going to be damned if I do and damned if I don't at every fork in the road. Here is the public apology link, which appears under "recent articles" on the web site:

[cust.idl.net.au]

The latest embellishment to the false charges of illegal activities comes as Craig's parting lie to Glenn:
Quote:
Illegal actions were done by members, true enough, but under direction from Dave. Failure to comply meant facing a grievance which was designed to coerce the individual into compliance.


Need I say it again? Report it to the police, Craig, or accept that you are going to be exposed for the liar that you are. The theft was carried out by Tony, without my knowledge or permission, and I spoke out against it to the entire community. I have asked you guys to stop making that slanderous accusation under threat of reporting the theft to the police myself, and, so help me God, the next time you do it, I WILL report it, and too bad to any who were involved in the theft. So I suggest you have a good talkover with your cronies before you or Tony spit out that lie again.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:00 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Craig has replied and thrown down the gauntlet:

Quote:
David McKay once again grabs a couple of uninvolved hostages and threatens us that he is going to harm them if we do not stop criticising him. David do whatever YOU plan to do Don't attribute your actions to be the result of help received from a God of love. We are not that stupid.

Stupid? Well, if you call people who steal a microscope from a university and then accuse me of stealing it smart, I know a lot of people who would disagree with you. There are no "uninvolved hostages" in this scenario, Craig. There are crooks, thieves, who are stupid enough to point the finger at me and accuse ME of being the thief.

You are as stupid as Bernie, who still argues that the Jesus Christians control the British police force because she was put in a cell overnight for assaulting a policeman. The prisons are full of people who never grew up, and who kept blaming other people for their crimes.

We have been joking about when Hitler is going to be mentioned in the accusations against me, and when Craig et al are going to accuse me of eating babies. Well, he's getting closer. Craig included in the same post what he considers to be complain number 37 against us:
Quote:
37. David often times takes innocent people hostage and uses them to try and silence critics of his "honest to whom" doctrine.


And then he goes into the terrorist comparison (still persisting with his belief in imaginary hostages), because I mentioned God and anyone knows that fundamentalist muslims also talk about God. he said:
Quote:
It is interesting how Dave trys to make it look like "God" is going to help him do what HE is threatening to do to his hostages. A bit like a raving Islamic fundamentalist shouting "Allah Hu Akba" before cutting off a head on camera.

Quote
Dave Mckay
Craig, of course, would almost certainly know about the public apology I posted a few years ago; but once again, I know that in my dealings with him I am going to be damned if I do and damned if I don't at every fork in the road. Here is the public apology link, which appears under "recent articles" on the web site:

[cust.idl.net.au]

This might be a bit of a tangent, but Dave has provided a link to a study he made called An Apology. Has anyone read it? I've always noted how uncomortable that study made me feel, even when I was in the Jesus Christians. It is because it is really the opposite of an apology. It is an explanation as to why he doesn't really [i:4b094b4ada]have[/i:4b094b4ada] to apologize, because after all, he didn't do anything that was really wrong.

First of all, he starts off by saying that he isn't guilty of any specific sin; if anything he's "impatient". In particular his sin is how he criticises others...not that he was wrong for critisising them mind you, but just how he does it, thus making sure that his sinning is still in a more virtuous catagory than others. He apologises for others thinking he's a bad leader. Finally, after rambling on for several paragraphs he adds a "but" and than basically says that he's doing the best he can.

This is particularly shocking because Dave always said that when someone is truly sorry they don't need to write a lot to explain it. In fact, he even said that he gets suspicious whenever someone prepares a long apology, yet here he writes multiple pages of "apology". What's even more surprising is that the JCs are very critical on what passes as a sincere apology, and the most obvious indicator that an apology isn't sincere is when some one says "I'm sorry for such and such [b:4b094b4ada]but[/b:4b094b4ada]..." And this is exactly what he did in his apology. He even throws in that he has really improved over the years...

If anyone of the JCs made such an apology he (and the other JCs) would almost instantly shoot it to bits, but he personally seems to get under the radar with things like this.

Oh by the way, I do think it's unfortunate, and a bit unfair that Tut got banned. He seems like a decent enough guy, so I think it'd be nice if he got another chance.

Dear David,

Thank you for reminding me.....Refugees frequently become refugees because of the wickedness of repressive regimes that attack the wider rights of others to engage in the "pusuit of life, liberty and happiness"...it was always farcial that you in were in anyway able to pretend to "champion" the rights of the downtrodden and the oppressed (given that you have always had so much more in common with the oppressors of the refugees).

Again, it sounds like this Craig character has managed a fantastic effort here....but you say that you are still only "hampered" in your deceit in relation to the refugees....hmmm, must do something to bring your dishonesty completely into the light here so that you efforts at self-promotion are thoroughly stopped!

thanks for letting me know!

Malcom, an award-winning producer and journalist from England was also accused by DM of hampering DM's efforts with the refugees. You're in good company!!!! The journalist had long moved-on and he was on vacation with his family at the time. This kind of DM nonsense is always good for a laugh. :lol: