I love your subject heading, Everybody has to "forsake all" except David.

This truly could be a case of, all people are equal, except some are more equal than others.

In a list of grievances posted from ex members to Dave, Item 13 states, "David falsely claims to have "forsaken all", while living in a government flat provided by Australian welfare".

Dave's response: "Depends on what one means by "forsaking all".[b:e8714cefee][/b:e8714cefee]

They may have left, but that hasn't stopped Dave from continuing to damage ex members.

In a thread appropriately entitled, 'damaged' ex members, on his website he argues that ex members are leaving, only because they're stubborn.

Quote

These guys are now out there because they are pretty stubborn about not cooperating

So all there have it. Ex members concerns about the group are simply due to then being stubborn and refusing to cooperate.

With quotes like that, remind me again, why David thinks, he's not a cult leader?

Perhaps ex members should only make posts on his site, like the newest member, Joe:

Quote

Great post Simon. I agree with everything you said.

I've no doubt David would fade away as the straw man he truly is, were he not to be able to manipulate witnesses and selectively present the "facts"...

Of significance here we note most recently (due to Apostates scholarly work) David's claim that Kate "agreed" to no longer participate on this site after David has clearly extorted her by threatening access to her son (....yes David, we understand by covertly "meeting" with Ash and bemoaning at length the seriousness of Kate's "intransigence" your crocodile tears have thus "explained" to Ash that he should be seen to convey that message "independently" of you....the mishistory of "access" between Ash and his family, that you have described as "normal procedure" on your website of course being a God forsaken fabrication towards that end)......

The Freedoms of Speech, Association and Movement are routinely denied to members of the JesusChristians, who by deciding to forsake these rights have thus made David McKay (not Jesus Christ!) their cornerstone!

...in many senses, they now lead little better than the lives of dogs in what will ultimately be of no avail either to themselves or those they believe they "witness" to....

It is a little relief to see that the quality of the contributers to the JC site is typified by the half-wit (...could he just have been the Devils' flatulence squeezed through a voice box, I wonder?) that described Kate as "Satan’s Whore" some time earlier, on the JC site....

Although such contributions to the JC site, may comfort and console David to be able to thus move unthreatened in amongst his own contemporary intellectual circle, the quality of the people who are being "impressed" with him is, I think, an encouraging sign for the ex-members. (.....of course, describing the JC's as those "who used to be the Christians" would actually be both historically and spiritually more accurate...)

While I would personally prefer the JC members to be able to post on this site (although, I agree with the moderator that David can save his barely disguised self-adoration for the deceived, elsewhere....)

I think ANY word Ash (or the others among the JC's) may choose to post here, that has been clearly predicated on the unethical exclusion (emotional blackmail)of those who could easily "unmask" Ash or many of the other JC's for the Godless hypocrites, they have chosen to thus become in emulation of David's faithless vanity .....should be constently challenged with the thuggish behaviour they indulge in....

Ash is directly complicit in the restriction of the contribution of someone to this site (which David in the blackness of his filthy soul, then parades triumphantly as the "meek co-operation of the penitent"), someone who only complies out of the love and concern she holds for her son.....(certainly not out of any agreement with the (lack of) principles David stands for).....

….the rights that we stand for here (I would argue extrapolated from the Sermon on the Mount) should be continually contrasted with the JC's decision to prostitute Christ’s teaching in the (more and more openly) "glorification" of David McKay and certainly need to figure prominently in any “investigation”…

(....."prostitution" that is evidenced for example by exactly what we have just outlined........that is, in the patent manipulation of witness's and selective presentation of facts, just discussed....it is certainly the antithesis of what Christ would have stood for)

A rigorous investigation would lead to ready exposure of David....and lay bare the gutless pandering to him, that Ash and other long-term members, lie to themselves is all done "in the name of God".....


(....this is not to forget the mongrel responsible for your current behaviour, Ash, however your deafening silence on issues discussed here in amongst the Davidspeak broaddcast on your site, only leads one (not subject to Davids "mind policing") to INCUR that you CONCUR with THE CUR!)

[www.welikejesus.com]

[b:93a69e69c7]On April 26, Joe wrote:[/b:93a69e69c7]

Quote

I'm sorry, but what type of person comes up with an username like "The Dude"?

[b:93a69e69c7]
Ezra replies on the 29th of April:[/b:93a69e69c7]

Quote

Dude! Joe! I can't believe you can't understand how much of a dude it takes to come up with a name like the Dude! Dude, c'mon!

One thing that we may have to be thankful for with Brian is that he doesn't try to hard to play the anonymous game that Craig (or Samaritan or Evil Ex Member or whatever name he'll conjure up next) loves to play!

[b:93a69e69c7]David throws in his two cents' worth later that day:[/b:93a69e69c7]

Quote

I want to officially defend Brian on this one. If people are going to have usernames, I like the shorter ones (and easy to spell ones) the best. 'Dude' is great!

[b:93a69e69c7]Joe changes his mind the next day:[/b:93a69e69c7]

Quote

Alright, I secede, "The Dude" is a great name.

[b:93a69e69c7]On their board, I go by "The Dude". If you read their board a bit, it seems like Joe agrees with whatever anybody says (basically he just writes, "Yeah!"), and especially agrees with whatever David says. Are you sure that you are REALLY thinking for yourself, Joe? I really like Malcolms' quote about how if you get too caught up in kissing David's butt, eventually his crap will come out of your mouth.

Joe, Ash, Grace, and all the rest...I pray that you'll get it someday.[/b:93a69e69c7]

Repeat this mantra over and over and over until you have a spiritual awakening disguised as a nervous breakdown, and then all of your problems are solved, and all your questions answered.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Ironic that [i:6d0b93a3c9]1984[/i:6d0b93a3c9] is Fran's (Fran is the cell leader in Kenya at the moment) favorite book, isn't it? How could he possibly not see that he has submitted himself entirely to Big Brother David?

[b:651e8d0d9f]The three slogans of the Party, on display everywhere, are:

* WAR IS PEACE
* FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Each of these is of course either contradictory or the opposite of what is normally believed, and in 1984, the world is in a state of constant war, no one is free, and everyone is ignorant. The slogans are analysed in Goldstein's book. Though logically insensible, the slogans do embody the Party. If anybody (like Winston) becomes too smart, they are whisked away for fear of rebellion. Through their constant repetition, the terms become meaningless, and the slogans become axiomatic. This type of misuse of language, and the deliberate self-deception with which the citizens are encouraged to accept it, is called doublethink.
[/b:651e8d0d9f]
One essential consequence of doublethink is that the Party can rewrite history with impunity, for "The Party is never wrong." The ultimate aim of the Party is, according to O'Brien, to gain and retain full power over all the people of Oceania; he sums this up with perhaps the most distressing prophecy of the entire novel: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake… We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

– Part III, chapter III

Doublethink

Main article: Doublethink

[b:2222eb083c] The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
[/b:2222eb083c]
– Part II, chapter IX - chapter I of Goldstein's book

David is a sick man and that society ought to be educated about and protected from people like him. Clinically speaking (not that I am near expert in the field) I strongly suspect that David is a malignant narcissist:
[b:73f04cad92]
Otto Kernberg described malignant narcissism as a syndrome characterized by a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial features, paranoid traits, and ego-syntonic aggression. Some also may find an absence of conscience, a psychological need for power, and a sense of importance (grandiosity). Pollock wrote: "The malignant narcissist is presented as pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism."[1] Kernberg claimed that malignant narcissism should be considered part of a spectrum of pathological narcissism, which saw as ranging from the Cleckley's antisocial character (today's psychopath) at the high end of severity, to malignant narcissism, to NPD at the low end.[2]

Kernberg wrote that malignant narcissism can be differentiated from psychopathy because of the malignant narcissists' capacity to internalize "both aggressive and idealized superego precursors, leading to the idealization of the aggressive, sadistic features of the pathological grandiose self of these patients."[3] According to Kernberg, the psychopaths' paranoid stance against external influences makes them unwilling to internalize even the values of the "aggressor", while malignant narcissists "have the capacity to admire powerful people, and can depend on sadistic and powerful but reliable parental images." Malignant narcissists, in contrast to psychopaths, are also said to be capable of developing "some identification with other powerful idealized figures as part of a cohesive 'gang' ... which permits at least some loyalty and good object relations to be internalized."

Malignant narcissism is highlighted as a key area when it comes to the study of mass, sexual, and serial murder.[/b:73f04cad92]

[en.wikipedia.org]

Or maybe this might ring a bell. Sound like somebody we know?

[b:73f04cad92]
In pursuit of his messianic dreams, there is no evidence he is constrained by conscience; his only loyalty is to Dave McKay. In pursuing his goals, David uses aggression instrumentally. He uses whatever force is necessary, and will, if he deems it expedient, go to extremes of violence, including the use of weapons of mass destruction. His unconstrained aggression is instrumental in pursuing his goals, but it is at the same time defensive aggression, for his grandiose façade masks underlying insecurity. While David is not psychotic, he has a strong paranoid orientation. He is ready for retaliation and, not without reason, sees himself as surrounded by enemies. But he ignores his role in creating those enemies, and righteously threatens his targets. The conspiracy theories he spins are not merely for popular consumption in the sane world, but genuinely reflect his paranoid mindset. He is convinced that the rick Ross, Brian Birmingham, and the rest of The System have been in league for the purpose of eliminating him, and finds a persuasive chain of evidence for this conclusion. His sycophant/disciples, propaganda and public statements, probably helps reinforce David's paranoid disposition and in a sense is the implementer of his paranoia.

It is this political personality constellation--messianic ambition for unlimited power, absence of conscience, unconstrained aggression, and a paranoid outlook--which make David so dangerous. Conceptualized as malignant narcissism, this is the personality configuration of the destructive charismatic who unifies and rallies his downtrodden supporters by blaming outside enemies. While David is not charismatic, this psychological stance is the basis of David's particular appeal to the children who see him as a strongman who shares their intense teenaged tendency to rebel and will champion their cause, exploiting their rebellion on the way.[/b:73f04cad92]

That was an edited version of an article about Saddam Hussein.

Funny how it fits David's personality characteristics and behavior patterns too, huh?

[www.pbs.org]

David doesn't like his dirty laundry be aired in public, so he's desperately trying to play with ex members minds. You could argue he's trying to keep all in, The Family.

David's latest offering on his flame thread has been trying to compare his damage or lack of it, during his claimed three month membership in the Children Of God, to the damage claimed by ex members of the Jesus Christians.

He conveniently forgets of course that he's talking to some people who have spent virtually their whole life in his cult.

For the ex member raising concerns about the Jesus Christians infiltration of Churches.

I suspect that David probably learnt this strategy by following the Children of God teaching contained in David Berg's letter (834),
"It's time to Invade the Churches".