Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
(.....(As usual...) am greatly enjoying the depth of your posts Apostate !... thank you!)

I agree. The quality and depth of Apostate's posts have been a pleasure to read. How it must irritate McKay to know that someone with Apostate's strong, clear mind slipped from his grasp. But, I suppose, that's the point, right?

Quote
Apostate
I see David has stooped so low as to publish an email address he got from the private Quaker contact list. I suggest that he remove it forthwith, if there is to be any vestige of "TRUST" to be left to him.

I doubt McKay could ever be seen as virtuous - the guy is a mean, manipulative individual with a singular agenda: control. And to think that Dave and his army label us hate-mongers!

Come on, wake up and smell the brimstone!

Some responses to Dave's continual slander of ex-members

Casey writes:
"Over on the RR forum Craig has been dominating the scene with pages and pages of posts."


Doing my best to counter Dave!

Casey:
"It's hardly worth responding to the accusations he makes as they've all been responded to before..."

I must have missed that. Please tell us again Casey why your community is justified in using gossip, physical force, psychological and social pressures to get its members to comply and Dave can retaliate against all who refuse to comply with verbal and physical abuse, malicious damage to property, public slander and the like, and still get on your high horse with pages and pages of histrionics about the injustice in some Quakers feeling your beliefs and practice are incompatible with their own.

Casey goes on to compare me with the Pharisees who were offended by the fact that Jesus did not wash his hands and asked questions to try and trap him.

The criminal behaviour which I have described represents the rotting corpses Dave hides behind the whited seplechure of his righteousness, and does not compare to the nit picking that he and his Sanhedrin indulge in, in an effort to find dirt on the hands of those they have treated so shamefully.


Dave responds:
"Now that you have mentioned Craig's latest raves, which, in the absence of David Lowe, Anita Walker, and Brian Birmingham have been little more than Craig talking to himself..."

Curious comment from someone who continues to rant against those he bans from his forum. Happy to talk with you in an open forum any time, Dave, but as I was expelled from your synagogue, I post here where it looks like at least you and Casey are taking an interest in what I say.

Dave:
"He keeps making changes to his own accusations, embellishing them more each time he tells them. Despite our many explanations about the comment regarding force and paedophiloia, he is now preaching that the comment was actually made in the context of a defence for paedophilia! (And he has the audacity to take the high moral ground against BRIAN for posting stuff that is not true!)"


Dave's likes to embellish his summaries of what others say with assertive rhetoric rather than simply providing the evidence with a simple quote.

This is what I wrote: "Dave argued that sex crimes like pedophilia cannot be explained as evil due to "force" as most pedophiles try to seduce their victims, and got himself into an indefensible position when arguing against the point that such an act takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of children and their reduced ability to understand or resist those who force themselves on to them."


Dave:
"It's pretty obvious that they have all recognised that Craig's rants over the past couple of weeks are NOT suitably sane to be published in a book, and so Craig has decided that if he is never going to get a publisher to touch such unsupportable slander, he may as well take advantage of the one platform where he is free (like Brian) to slander myself and Jesus Christians totally without restraint."


Once again Dave questions the sanity of a critic. Responses would suggest people are enjoying the "depth" of my contributions. Everyone knows that if I said something that is not true and which cannot be substantiated with witnesses, you would be threatening to take me to court like you did with Brian, Dave.

Dave:
"For my part, I think that the more rope he is given, the more he is going to hang himself, so that in the end, like Casey has done above, we can just say to people, "Go read it for yourself, and you'll be able to see that this is one sick puppy." Even at the risk of people thinking that some of it might be true, they come back convinced that he does not have much credibility."

Dave, you are not giving me anything. You can delete or ban what I say on your forum, but you don't hold any "rope" here. If you think that the comments from a trained lap dog represent an objective response to what I say, you are deluded.

Dave on "trust"

"Her argument was that Friends need to trust one another, and she, for one, does not trust Jesus Christians. If she cannot trust us, then that justifies certain actions being taken to protect her from us."

That should be a line of reasoning Dave would understand because he teaches that trust is something followers have for leaders, wives for husbands etc, and that it doesn't work the other way around. It is his reasoning for "leaders meetings" in which the problems of followers/wives are discussed behind their back. It was his reasoning for sneaking out and abandoning a team of Indian disciples he felt he no longer trusted and no doubt his justification for his private meetings to try and remove those he no longer trusted at the time of the Split without observing the "grievance" process.


At least the Quakers are being up front about their position rather than concealing treachery behind a wall of lies.

Dave must be shaking in his slippers with the thought that a book may or may not be published. Of course, this forum is a handy way to communicate quickly and inexpensively. And from what I know, and have read here, someone like Apostate would not compromise his integrity (or waste his time) by writing slanderously and/or untruthfully. His testimony (Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof) is based on personal experience and the interpretation of many of Dave's doctrines. With the regard to the latter, Apostate simply seeks clarification of this questionable doctrine. What more can anyone ask?

So, yes, I, for one, support Apostate's continued testimony and interpretation. In fact, it is refreshing to have someone with Apostate's acute sensibility sharing his experiences and thoughts at this forum.

Ross writes: [welikejesus.com]

"Here's a good example of politically correct language used to hide the truth:

Collateral Damage. = The Killing of innocent civilians(or even members of ones own army) during a military operation which was supposed to target enemy soldiers or military targets.

Grace: The license to commit any sin you please because afterward you believe you will be forgiven for it anyway."

Hey, Ross. What do you call it when you recommend scapegoating one of your troops on the pretext of saving the whole and that operation ends up resulting in half of one's own army being lost? Collateral Damage? Or do you hide the truth by renaming them all "Rebels" who are undeserving of normal conventions and treat them as 'enemy combatants'?

And what licence do you claim to cover your role in participating in the closed meeting to discuss this and in putting this decision in writing? It seems like it would be hard to claim grace to cover the lack of any.

Apostate, you are certainly not talking to yourself. Many of us are eagerly reading it. When Dave cannot answer criticisms directly, because the truth hurts, he tries to shoot the messenger. Increasingly he is clutching at straws. Thank you for your contributions which I will back up as being very relevant criticisms.

Apostate,
As some others have said, you are not talking to yourself. I think your posts are rational, well written and well thought out.
KUTGW,
Still...
Gladitzover

Apostate, you are not talking to yourself and don't worry about those voices that you keep hearing, either. That's just the sound of an appreciative audience.

I still believe though that Dave wins hands down when it comes to writing the most damaging material about himself and the Jesus Christians.

Calling Mothers who love their children and who are genuinely concerned for their welfare, stalkers. Won't win him too many, "Friends".

Hi Apostate:
I also really enjoy your posts: please keep writing,Yasmin

Thanks for the expression of support guys. Much appreciated.


Dave to the NSW Quakers:

And I will state once again, my willingness to close down this whole section of the Jesus Christian web site, if there can be talks between ourselves and other Friends which would result in that awful minute being overturned... the one which says that my beliefs and the beliefs of my wife and all other Jesus Christians are incompatible with Quaker faith and practice.


"Easy English" Translation: Do it or else!