Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 15, 2008 01:08PM
Casey the "wannabe" martyr said: [welikejesus.com]
In some ways I view the tribulation as a bit of a privilege, like it's the final mission which God is asking us to participate in. It's not just a matter of surviving, but getting the job done as well. I think the hardest parts of the tribulation will mostly be for a world that never wanted to take Jesus seriously, whereas people sincerely trying to follow Jesus will just see it as part of the job, and maybe even be a bit excited about everything finally coming together. I think a positive attitude towards the tribulation, and understanding WHY it happens is a big part of Surviving, although if I am doing my job properly, I don't expect to survive for the whole 3.5 years as I'll probably be killed in the line of duty somewhere along the way.
Viewing suffering as a "privelege" is not healthy. So what date does the "tribulation" start Casey?
In some ways I view the tribulation as a bit of a privilege, like it's the final mission which God is asking us to participate in. It's not just a matter of surviving, but getting the job done as well. I think the hardest parts of the tribulation will mostly be for a world that never wanted to take Jesus seriously, whereas people sincerely trying to follow Jesus will just see it as part of the job, and maybe even be a bit excited about everything finally coming together. I think a positive attitude towards the tribulation, and understanding WHY it happens is a big part of Surviving, although if I am doing my job properly, I don't expect to survive for the whole 3.5 years as I'll probably be killed in the line of duty somewhere along the way.
Viewing suffering as a "privelege" is not healthy. So what date does the "tribulation" start Casey?
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
muppet
()
Date: February 15, 2008 03:43PM
Dave posted this on the moneysavingexpert site
There are so many things to respond to on this thread; it's hard to deal with them all.
One is the idea that the supermarkets should just give their waste to charities and that would solve the problem. In fact, a few do, and readers may find it hard to believe this, but even the CHARITIES in this country do not have the time or the workers to take advantage of even a very small percentage of what is being thrown out. Because it does take time to sort, clean (We regularly do a bleach water rinse even of packaged stuff just to be safe.), and store, and because they cannot place very specific orders, the vast majority of stuff (even from shops that offer their waste to charities) still goes to landfill.
Freegans regularly share the word with others who may be able to take advantage of the waste, but we find that often the people who might need the food the most (the really poor) in Western countries, are still well enough off that they won't risk the shame of being seen digging through a bin. So a high percentage of freegans are from middle-class backgrounds, because they are the ones who have the confidence to do what they are doing for a 'cause' (global sustainability) rather than out of necessity.
And that brings us to the question of Danny being "different" and whether or not it is fair for his parents to let him be. Obviously what makes Danny different is more a matter of choice than being handicapped or born into a minority race. And all parents (including Sue and Rols) take some notice of the pressure to conform. We are aware of certain fashions, and we try to conform with them. But the big question is, "How far should we go?"
At some point we are all going to find ourselves in situations where we are different to the norm (and to totally run away from that is to become some kind of a misfit of a different sort). Those with more self-esteem will be able to handle being different better than those with lower self-esteem. I wonder if people who viewed the show got the idea that Danny lacked self-esteem. I doubt it. Danny has immense confidence, much of which has COME FROM being different... travelling the world, meeting thousands of people on the streets, etc.
It seems to me that he has a pretty normal desire not to come across as being WEIRD (one reason for being let off from the motorhome a block or two away from the school). But as was pointed out on the Aftermath in particular, Danny himself was offended that the producers edited out all of the positive things he said about his parents and about his lifestyle.
After only a few months of normal schooling, Danny now wants out. He is finding it boring sitting in a classroom with a lot of kids who don't appear to want to learn, with a teacher who is overworked, with all of them just waiting for the bell to ring so they can go home. He knows that, with homeschooling he was able to get on with other activities the moment he finished his studies. (And Danny turned out to be one of the top students in his school when he did enrol, even though he never took a particularly competitive approach to his schoolwork while being homeschooled.)
Danny has visited just about every theme park in the UK, so people who think that a 60 pound stint at a race track was the first fun that he ever had in his life were a little misled.
Danny meets on a fairly regular basis with other kids who are homeschooled, thanks to an organisation that brings together kids with such a background. They go on camps together.
He also attends at least one after school drop-in center on a regular basis, and plays in a local footy club. So the impression that the producers gave that he lives in a cage (the motorhome) with a gerbil 24 hours a day was decidedly misleading
There are so many things to respond to on this thread; it's hard to deal with them all.
One is the idea that the supermarkets should just give their waste to charities and that would solve the problem. In fact, a few do, and readers may find it hard to believe this, but even the CHARITIES in this country do not have the time or the workers to take advantage of even a very small percentage of what is being thrown out. Because it does take time to sort, clean (We regularly do a bleach water rinse even of packaged stuff just to be safe.), and store, and because they cannot place very specific orders, the vast majority of stuff (even from shops that offer their waste to charities) still goes to landfill.
Freegans regularly share the word with others who may be able to take advantage of the waste, but we find that often the people who might need the food the most (the really poor) in Western countries, are still well enough off that they won't risk the shame of being seen digging through a bin. So a high percentage of freegans are from middle-class backgrounds, because they are the ones who have the confidence to do what they are doing for a 'cause' (global sustainability) rather than out of necessity.
And that brings us to the question of Danny being "different" and whether or not it is fair for his parents to let him be. Obviously what makes Danny different is more a matter of choice than being handicapped or born into a minority race. And all parents (including Sue and Rols) take some notice of the pressure to conform. We are aware of certain fashions, and we try to conform with them. But the big question is, "How far should we go?"
At some point we are all going to find ourselves in situations where we are different to the norm (and to totally run away from that is to become some kind of a misfit of a different sort). Those with more self-esteem will be able to handle being different better than those with lower self-esteem. I wonder if people who viewed the show got the idea that Danny lacked self-esteem. I doubt it. Danny has immense confidence, much of which has COME FROM being different... travelling the world, meeting thousands of people on the streets, etc.
It seems to me that he has a pretty normal desire not to come across as being WEIRD (one reason for being let off from the motorhome a block or two away from the school). But as was pointed out on the Aftermath in particular, Danny himself was offended that the producers edited out all of the positive things he said about his parents and about his lifestyle.
After only a few months of normal schooling, Danny now wants out. He is finding it boring sitting in a classroom with a lot of kids who don't appear to want to learn, with a teacher who is overworked, with all of them just waiting for the bell to ring so they can go home. He knows that, with homeschooling he was able to get on with other activities the moment he finished his studies. (And Danny turned out to be one of the top students in his school when he did enrol, even though he never took a particularly competitive approach to his schoolwork while being homeschooled.)
Danny has visited just about every theme park in the UK, so people who think that a 60 pound stint at a race track was the first fun that he ever had in his life were a little misled.
Danny meets on a fairly regular basis with other kids who are homeschooled, thanks to an organisation that brings together kids with such a background. They go on camps together.
He also attends at least one after school drop-in center on a regular basis, and plays in a local footy club. So the impression that the producers gave that he lives in a cage (the motorhome) with a gerbil 24 hours a day was decidedly misleading
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 15, 2008 08:13PM
Dave writes: [welikejesus.com]
"I have taken to treating Craig's posts lately in much the same way that I treat Malcolm's, i.e. barely taking the time to read them, if I even do that."
Come on Dave. You jump on the opportunity to shoot me down if you could. I can understand you squinting through one eye at stuff that proves you to be the liar that you are, and can imagine that you had your eyes closed when you wrote the waffle you offered up as a response, but when you use weasel words like "barely read... if I even did that." we KNOW that you are rattled.
"At least with Brian, he actualy said stuff of interest, whereas Craig's style has turned into taking virtually EVERYTHING that I say (no matter how innocent) and showing how he can turn it around into something evil."
I am deconstructing your waffle like you try to do with everyone else, Dave, which I must say, aint that hard. Lets see, you are trying the old play your critics off each other trick. I am guessing that growing up in a big family one of your parents did this to you, but I can't see anyone you have done your darndest to slander and banish, giving a toss what you think of their effort to expose you.
"Of course, it always includes distortions of the truth, but that's nothing new coming from Craig. I doubt that it convinces anyone, and so I have stopped responding."
And yet he responds...
"However, there is one bit of factual information that I probably should respond to, since it is a genuine mistake on my part."
...to admit he was "factually" wrong the last time he tried to prove I "distorted the truth". Note: "genuine" = inescapable
"Ages ago, Craig went on about a handicapped kid who stayed with us in Victoria. I confused it with a mother and son who stayed with the team when Cherry and I were in Sydney."
What OTHER single mother and kid in a wheelchair are you referring to Dave? For as long as I was in the community we NEVER had a base in Sydney while we had a team in Victoria.
"I don't think I ever met them. I further said something about getting information from the team by email when, of course, we did not even HAVE email then. It would have been information communicated either by phone or snail mail."
But if Dave is confusing the incident I recounted to ANOTHER kid in a wheelchair who visited the community and had his battery disconnected when he reckons we had a team in both Victoria and Sydney, why not stick to that story, Dave and say we DID have email then?! (Dave knows he is talking through his arse here, and doesn't even bother to think up a good story to cover the bad lie.)
"Craig pointed out that he was talking about a mother and son who stayed with us when we were living in Geelong... a time when Cherry and I definitely WERE with the team."
I pointed that out "ages" ago, so what prompted that delayed realisation? And if you are "definite" in agreeing that you were present now, what possessed you to present factually incorrect information and say; "You see, these are the kind of facts that are being left out of so much that Craig (Apostate) is writing." [welikejesus.com]
"Unfortunately my memory is still very fuzzy about this pair. Maybe Craig can tell me if that was the mother from Tasmania, who was travelling around in a bus. I thought she had TWO kids, however. Nevertheless, Cherry assures me (ah, she's a lifesaver as my memory suffers the ravages of time!) that this is the boy who would use his wheelchair like a weapon to attack others."
That is the same story you told, Dave concerning the boy you "emailed" advice about. Or have you modified that to a snail mail that you sent to people you were "definitely" living with?
"But Craig says, no, his complaint had to do with when we were out for a group run around the block, and I pulled the plug on the wheelchair's battery because the boy was trying to get away from me. I have some vague recollection about a kid in a wheelchair not waiting till the light turned green when we were travelling (probably jogging) around the block near our house,"
Dave's doublethink is reaching a farcical state here. He can't decide if he "barely reads" what I say; is "definite" about agreeing that he lived in the same house in Victoria when he heard from Sydney about a kid using his wheelchair as a weapon to attack others via phone or snail mail (since Craig proved that email had not yet been invented) ; and now has some vague recollection about a kid he never even met, crossing a road against a set of lights while jogging around the block near "our" house!
Why don't you write a letter to Cherry Dave, and she can tell you in a dream who disconnected the battery and when you come to your sense I will spell it out to you plainly "THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC LIGHT" and no traffic, and YOU pulled the plug because you could not stand a ten year old kid turning away from you.
"...but I accept that my memory is not clear on this."
So do you retract the claim that I distorted the truth by leaving out facts that you now admit were factually false?
"So let's take Craig's version..."
Why Not? That's all we have left when Dave recants his own version as "factually" bullshit.
"The boy was trying to get away from me. full stop. Why? How? It's all pretty unclear, but that's because Craig feels that the horrible offence would be that any adult should ever, under any circumstances, turn the battery off, thus rendering the boy immobile. In true Craig style, he compares it to cutting the boy's legs off. (Of course, because just turning a battery off is hardly consistent with a mass murderer and a serial rapist, whereas cutting legs off is!)"
Whatever, Dave! You accused a 10 year old kid of using his wheelchair as a "weapon", so you might be projecting your violent criminal mindset on to me. My point is that like the incident around this same time when you physically kicked and verbally abused a psychiatric patient that embarrassed you, you are such a control freak, you needed to assert yourself over a ten year-old cripple, by taking his only link to autonomy away from him. It is the same mentality that expresses itself in the decision to whip a black servant whom you accuse of committing petty theft against you in Kenya.
"So I'm happy to leave it there and let Craig tell the story as he likes. I just want to confess that I did have the time and place confused, as though that makes any significant difference."
If that was supposed to be an honest effort to acknowledge making false statements presented as the kind of facts that I leave out of my "distorted" claims, Dave really does need to read Fran's notes again on the Art of Apologising. I recounted an incident "as it was" and have presented the evidence that exposed Dave lying so it impresses no one to contaminate your "confession" with further insinuations against the truthfulness of my claims.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 08:17PM by apostate.
"I have taken to treating Craig's posts lately in much the same way that I treat Malcolm's, i.e. barely taking the time to read them, if I even do that."
Come on Dave. You jump on the opportunity to shoot me down if you could. I can understand you squinting through one eye at stuff that proves you to be the liar that you are, and can imagine that you had your eyes closed when you wrote the waffle you offered up as a response, but when you use weasel words like "barely read... if I even did that." we KNOW that you are rattled.
"At least with Brian, he actualy said stuff of interest, whereas Craig's style has turned into taking virtually EVERYTHING that I say (no matter how innocent) and showing how he can turn it around into something evil."
I am deconstructing your waffle like you try to do with everyone else, Dave, which I must say, aint that hard. Lets see, you are trying the old play your critics off each other trick. I am guessing that growing up in a big family one of your parents did this to you, but I can't see anyone you have done your darndest to slander and banish, giving a toss what you think of their effort to expose you.
"Of course, it always includes distortions of the truth, but that's nothing new coming from Craig. I doubt that it convinces anyone, and so I have stopped responding."
And yet he responds...
"However, there is one bit of factual information that I probably should respond to, since it is a genuine mistake on my part."
...to admit he was "factually" wrong the last time he tried to prove I "distorted the truth". Note: "genuine" = inescapable
"Ages ago, Craig went on about a handicapped kid who stayed with us in Victoria. I confused it with a mother and son who stayed with the team when Cherry and I were in Sydney."
What OTHER single mother and kid in a wheelchair are you referring to Dave? For as long as I was in the community we NEVER had a base in Sydney while we had a team in Victoria.
"I don't think I ever met them. I further said something about getting information from the team by email when, of course, we did not even HAVE email then. It would have been information communicated either by phone or snail mail."
But if Dave is confusing the incident I recounted to ANOTHER kid in a wheelchair who visited the community and had his battery disconnected when he reckons we had a team in both Victoria and Sydney, why not stick to that story, Dave and say we DID have email then?! (Dave knows he is talking through his arse here, and doesn't even bother to think up a good story to cover the bad lie.)
"Craig pointed out that he was talking about a mother and son who stayed with us when we were living in Geelong... a time when Cherry and I definitely WERE with the team."
I pointed that out "ages" ago, so what prompted that delayed realisation? And if you are "definite" in agreeing that you were present now, what possessed you to present factually incorrect information and say; "You see, these are the kind of facts that are being left out of so much that Craig (Apostate) is writing." [welikejesus.com]
"Unfortunately my memory is still very fuzzy about this pair. Maybe Craig can tell me if that was the mother from Tasmania, who was travelling around in a bus. I thought she had TWO kids, however. Nevertheless, Cherry assures me (ah, she's a lifesaver as my memory suffers the ravages of time!) that this is the boy who would use his wheelchair like a weapon to attack others."
That is the same story you told, Dave concerning the boy you "emailed" advice about. Or have you modified that to a snail mail that you sent to people you were "definitely" living with?
"But Craig says, no, his complaint had to do with when we were out for a group run around the block, and I pulled the plug on the wheelchair's battery because the boy was trying to get away from me. I have some vague recollection about a kid in a wheelchair not waiting till the light turned green when we were travelling (probably jogging) around the block near our house,"
Dave's doublethink is reaching a farcical state here. He can't decide if he "barely reads" what I say; is "definite" about agreeing that he lived in the same house in Victoria when he heard from Sydney about a kid using his wheelchair as a weapon to attack others via phone or snail mail (since Craig proved that email had not yet been invented) ; and now has some vague recollection about a kid he never even met, crossing a road against a set of lights while jogging around the block near "our" house!
Why don't you write a letter to Cherry Dave, and she can tell you in a dream who disconnected the battery and when you come to your sense I will spell it out to you plainly "THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC LIGHT" and no traffic, and YOU pulled the plug because you could not stand a ten year old kid turning away from you.
"...but I accept that my memory is not clear on this."
So do you retract the claim that I distorted the truth by leaving out facts that you now admit were factually false?
"So let's take Craig's version..."
Why Not? That's all we have left when Dave recants his own version as "factually" bullshit.
"The boy was trying to get away from me. full stop. Why? How? It's all pretty unclear, but that's because Craig feels that the horrible offence would be that any adult should ever, under any circumstances, turn the battery off, thus rendering the boy immobile. In true Craig style, he compares it to cutting the boy's legs off. (Of course, because just turning a battery off is hardly consistent with a mass murderer and a serial rapist, whereas cutting legs off is!)"
Whatever, Dave! You accused a 10 year old kid of using his wheelchair as a "weapon", so you might be projecting your violent criminal mindset on to me. My point is that like the incident around this same time when you physically kicked and verbally abused a psychiatric patient that embarrassed you, you are such a control freak, you needed to assert yourself over a ten year-old cripple, by taking his only link to autonomy away from him. It is the same mentality that expresses itself in the decision to whip a black servant whom you accuse of committing petty theft against you in Kenya.
"So I'm happy to leave it there and let Craig tell the story as he likes. I just want to confess that I did have the time and place confused, as though that makes any significant difference."
If that was supposed to be an honest effort to acknowledge making false statements presented as the kind of facts that I leave out of my "distorted" claims, Dave really does need to read Fran's notes again on the Art of Apologising. I recounted an incident "as it was" and have presented the evidence that exposed Dave lying so it impresses no one to contaminate your "confession" with further insinuations against the truthfulness of my claims.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 08:17PM by apostate.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
cultmalleus
()
Date: February 15, 2008 08:41PM
some thoughts as I watched this fascinating program,
in response to the valid question that Freeganism could not work on a large scale Sue said "Well I suppose thats where my faith in God comes in to it."
What sort of answer is that? Does she have faith that after the Tribulation a great golden pyramid city (ala COG) will come down heavily laden with bounteous provisions of rubbish and thrown out Tesco products? All the people of the world will then take to rubbish sorting and itinerant book selling to eachother? Will all houses be razed and everyone forced to live in carbon emitting campervans?
The question about "what do you contribute to society" showed up a central fallacy of the JC's.
Rols and Sue are the most keen on the most useless JC activity, being pamphlet sellers/beggars. The point made is absolutely correct, it's NOT about working for money it's about HELPING people and contributing to society. Just answering with a cliche or a statement from the "Thoughts of chairman Dave" is not answering the question. If they do free work, thats different, if they help in nursing homes, that's different; but just preaching, it's not contributing.
Lastly, what single factor has actually improved living standards of 3rd world poor people the most over the last 50 years? Is it freeganism? Is it basket weavers in hand woven jumpers? Is it charity (although it has a worthy contribution)?
Wrong. It is business, it is trade, it is economic development; consider the Asian countries such as Malaysia, Thailand and now China and India. This truth may hurt, but it is the truth.
Unfortunately, the JC's commitment is to the old worn out rehashed 1960's COG doctrines as amended by David McKay and they HATE the truth when it contradicts their fossilised ideology.
in response to the valid question that Freeganism could not work on a large scale Sue said "Well I suppose thats where my faith in God comes in to it."
What sort of answer is that? Does she have faith that after the Tribulation a great golden pyramid city (ala COG) will come down heavily laden with bounteous provisions of rubbish and thrown out Tesco products? All the people of the world will then take to rubbish sorting and itinerant book selling to eachother? Will all houses be razed and everyone forced to live in carbon emitting campervans?
The question about "what do you contribute to society" showed up a central fallacy of the JC's.
Rols and Sue are the most keen on the most useless JC activity, being pamphlet sellers/beggars. The point made is absolutely correct, it's NOT about working for money it's about HELPING people and contributing to society. Just answering with a cliche or a statement from the "Thoughts of chairman Dave" is not answering the question. If they do free work, thats different, if they help in nursing homes, that's different; but just preaching, it's not contributing.
Lastly, what single factor has actually improved living standards of 3rd world poor people the most over the last 50 years? Is it freeganism? Is it basket weavers in hand woven jumpers? Is it charity (although it has a worthy contribution)?
Wrong. It is business, it is trade, it is economic development; consider the Asian countries such as Malaysia, Thailand and now China and India. This truth may hurt, but it is the truth.
Unfortunately, the JC's commitment is to the old worn out rehashed 1960's COG doctrines as amended by David McKay and they HATE the truth when it contradicts their fossilised ideology.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
cultmalleus
()
Date: February 15, 2008 09:04PM
In my listening time with God I recieved a radical revelation for the Jesus Christians! I have the perfect group that is only for "new bottles" to join. Old bottles will surely crack with this one. Financial Services Volunteer Corps Seriously, they are doing wonderful work making banking and financial services transparent and accessible to the poor, kickstarting and enabling economic development to eliminate poverty.
If you tell me that freeganism will somehow help the poor more than this, you can be sucked into anything.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 09:11PM by cultmalleus.
If you tell me that freeganism will somehow help the poor more than this, you can be sucked into anything.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 09:11PM by cultmalleus.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Dogmother
()
Date: February 15, 2008 10:31PM
Cultmalleus, thanks. I am always struck by how backward and hypocritical Dave's thinking is. There was recently a discussion about factory farming and our treatment of animals.
The woman Dave called so many times by despicable names has been a vegetarian for many years--amongst many other causes--and has been outspoken that humans cannot treat any living being callously. We have a higher mission.
"For the violence done to Lebanon is going to overwhelm you. So will the slaughter of its terrified beasts. (Hab 2:17.)
My point is and you know this, what is Dave's mission all about? What does he do that changes the world for the better that not all of us are committed to doing, caring about and are doing more effectively? Plus we contribute to our societies by working.
In my opinion there is a great deal of shame involved in begging and it's not something which pleases God in anyway. Dave is out of step with the rest of humanity and that's a great waste of his disciples' limited time on earth.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 10:36PM by Dogmother.
The woman Dave called so many times by despicable names has been a vegetarian for many years--amongst many other causes--and has been outspoken that humans cannot treat any living being callously. We have a higher mission.
"For the violence done to Lebanon is going to overwhelm you. So will the slaughter of its terrified beasts. (Hab 2:17.)
My point is and you know this, what is Dave's mission all about? What does he do that changes the world for the better that not all of us are committed to doing, caring about and are doing more effectively? Plus we contribute to our societies by working.
In my opinion there is a great deal of shame involved in begging and it's not something which pleases God in anyway. Dave is out of step with the rest of humanity and that's a great waste of his disciples' limited time on earth.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 10:36PM by Dogmother.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: February 15, 2008 10:47PM
" I just want to confess that I did have the time and place confused, as though that makes any significant difference." David McKay
Well the "difference" here, is that you have clearly displayed, for all to see, your psychopathic fixation on your need for the appearance of "integrity" (in order to justify your continued right to "rule" your empire), hence even where you are finally clearly disproven and are shown to have blatantly lied (after repeated specific denials on your part of the facts of the matter), your defence of "last resort" (that you somehow "forgot" and that the matter is "trivial") is intended to exculpate you from any blame.....
Well unfortunately (for you), far from it, David....
....the time and effort you put into specifically denying the facts of the case, tells the world that there never was any "forgetfulness" on your part whatsoever, merely the cheap tactic of "shouting down" with bluster, a message that threatened you;
and what you seek to now deliberately "trivialize" (callously bullying a child with intimidation) tells us all of course, exactly how desperately heartless you really are
Naturally this is hugely significant, proving(again) as it does that:
You are not "fit" in any sense of the word to lead the young people currently betoken to you;
You would appear to be routinely dishonest, having no compunction about the invention of "histories" that advantage you;
You knowingly falsely besmirch, those who question you:
Knowing this, and taking into account your earlier (derisory) comment "So I'm happy to leave it there and let Craig tell the story as he likes".
Well then for Gods' sake, listen to Apostate and just..... SHUT UP!!!
Well the "difference" here, is that you have clearly displayed, for all to see, your psychopathic fixation on your need for the appearance of "integrity" (in order to justify your continued right to "rule" your empire), hence even where you are finally clearly disproven and are shown to have blatantly lied (after repeated specific denials on your part of the facts of the matter), your defence of "last resort" (that you somehow "forgot" and that the matter is "trivial") is intended to exculpate you from any blame.....
Well unfortunately (for you), far from it, David....
....the time and effort you put into specifically denying the facts of the case, tells the world that there never was any "forgetfulness" on your part whatsoever, merely the cheap tactic of "shouting down" with bluster, a message that threatened you;
and what you seek to now deliberately "trivialize" (callously bullying a child with intimidation) tells us all of course, exactly how desperately heartless you really are
Naturally this is hugely significant, proving(again) as it does that:
You are not "fit" in any sense of the word to lead the young people currently betoken to you;
You would appear to be routinely dishonest, having no compunction about the invention of "histories" that advantage you;
You knowingly falsely besmirch, those who question you:
Knowing this, and taking into account your earlier (derisory) comment "So I'm happy to leave it there and let Craig tell the story as he likes".
Well then for Gods' sake, listen to Apostate and just..... SHUT UP!!!
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: February 16, 2008 12:03AM
(....the puerile mind of "Satan" at work...several pages earlier, Apostate quoting David)
"You have stated, Brian, that you have "Private Eyes'" name, address, phone number, and place of employment. I'm not asking you to give them to me or to anyone else; but if you really DO have them, then you know that what I am saying is true. Personally I think that you DON'T have them, as David is EXTREMELY careful about who he gives that kind of information to. Even when he is writing to people off-line, he does not use his real name. He made a special point of not revealing his identity to Anita, even though she was echoing what he said so much that I seriously thought that she was him at one point, and even though she is a Quaker (attender) and you are not. So why would he trust you with such information and not her? (Especially considering that he did not let you in on the Jeremy Kyle plans... and that much you KNOW is true. I fully accept that he has USED you, Brian, but her definitely does not TRUST you enough to give you that information.)" (David Mckay)
Does anyone follow that convoluted line of logic? I picked up a line that involved Dave admitting a former assertion regarding XXX was a lie. But we can believe Dave this time? Sure! One day Dave might just get his "good excuse" to try and use his arguments to convince a judge, but it doesn't take Einstein to conclude that this guy is "just a little bit shifty". (Apostate)
Dear Apostate,
This nasty little piece, is David's childish effort to "goad" Zeusor (Oh yes, that right I was "used" wasn't I....that makes me angry enough to inadvertently release the information that David is drooling for), into revealing further private information about another individual on this forum....the spiteful intent under it all is to "engage" Zeusor in derisory banter (You don't REALLY know his address, do you,...Yes I do...No, you don't...yes, I DO...NO, you DON'T...YES I DO...Well can you prove it then (heh, heh, heh)....Of Course I can..why its XXXX..XXXX..), with another agenda altogether at stake....
Again, further evidence (should it be needed!) of how sick David's demented "mind" is......he stoops to the games and psychological ploys of an infant....to deceitfully obtain information that he would then strut around with, to vainly demonstrate his "intelligence", before all and sundry....
Dear Zeusor,
I realize that you have the maturity to see through this, however, I purposely bring it to your attention, in order to point out the persistent (simple-minded) wickedness of the weasel. I appreciate the effort you have put into your postings Zeusor, (e.g. thank-you the "Wife-Swap" files).....in accord with your recent apology to Blackhat and in keeping with the scriptural injunction to be as "gentle as doves, and wise as serpents"....I hope that you will continue to post thoughtfully on the forum ....and that you will remain cognizant of Davids' foul mind and his attempts to manipulate whatever information he can out of you.....
"You have stated, Brian, that you have "Private Eyes'" name, address, phone number, and place of employment. I'm not asking you to give them to me or to anyone else; but if you really DO have them, then you know that what I am saying is true. Personally I think that you DON'T have them, as David is EXTREMELY careful about who he gives that kind of information to. Even when he is writing to people off-line, he does not use his real name. He made a special point of not revealing his identity to Anita, even though she was echoing what he said so much that I seriously thought that she was him at one point, and even though she is a Quaker (attender) and you are not. So why would he trust you with such information and not her? (Especially considering that he did not let you in on the Jeremy Kyle plans... and that much you KNOW is true. I fully accept that he has USED you, Brian, but her definitely does not TRUST you enough to give you that information.)" (David Mckay)
Does anyone follow that convoluted line of logic? I picked up a line that involved Dave admitting a former assertion regarding XXX was a lie. But we can believe Dave this time? Sure! One day Dave might just get his "good excuse" to try and use his arguments to convince a judge, but it doesn't take Einstein to conclude that this guy is "just a little bit shifty". (Apostate)
Dear Apostate,
This nasty little piece, is David's childish effort to "goad" Zeusor (Oh yes, that right I was "used" wasn't I....that makes me angry enough to inadvertently release the information that David is drooling for), into revealing further private information about another individual on this forum....the spiteful intent under it all is to "engage" Zeusor in derisory banter (You don't REALLY know his address, do you,...Yes I do...No, you don't...yes, I DO...NO, you DON'T...YES I DO...Well can you prove it then (heh, heh, heh)....Of Course I can..why its XXXX..XXXX..), with another agenda altogether at stake....
Again, further evidence (should it be needed!) of how sick David's demented "mind" is......he stoops to the games and psychological ploys of an infant....to deceitfully obtain information that he would then strut around with, to vainly demonstrate his "intelligence", before all and sundry....
Dear Zeusor,
I realize that you have the maturity to see through this, however, I purposely bring it to your attention, in order to point out the persistent (simple-minded) wickedness of the weasel. I appreciate the effort you have put into your postings Zeusor, (e.g. thank-you the "Wife-Swap" files).....in accord with your recent apology to Blackhat and in keeping with the scriptural injunction to be as "gentle as doves, and wise as serpents"....I hope that you will continue to post thoughtfully on the forum ....and that you will remain cognizant of Davids' foul mind and his attempts to manipulate whatever information he can out of you.....
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
Dogmother
()
Date: February 16, 2008 03:28AM
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 16, 2008 05:51AM
Joe has an a moment of enlightenment ... for others of course [welikejesus.com]
Recently I was reading through Galatians, where Paul is telling the church there that circumcision is no longer necessary to receive the grace that comes through Jesus Christ, and that those pressuring them to do so only wanted to glory in their flesh, wherewith no man can rightly glory. As I was reading the chapter, I couldn't help but see how much the same thing could be likened to water baptism, or any other outward ritual/sacrament that religious people would say is necessary to receive the grace of God. While Jesus would say that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Mt. 9:13), religious people insist that we need to do some special work to receive this grace. Same stuff, just different day.
Joe, what special work do the JC's insist potential recruits do in order to receive grace?
Recently I was reading through Galatians, where Paul is telling the church there that circumcision is no longer necessary to receive the grace that comes through Jesus Christ, and that those pressuring them to do so only wanted to glory in their flesh, wherewith no man can rightly glory. As I was reading the chapter, I couldn't help but see how much the same thing could be likened to water baptism, or any other outward ritual/sacrament that religious people would say is necessary to receive the grace of God. While Jesus would say that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Mt. 9:13), religious people insist that we need to do some special work to receive this grace. Same stuff, just different day.
Joe, what special work do the JC's insist potential recruits do in order to receive grace?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.