Quote
zeuszor
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.

Quote
zeuszor

Quote
Apollo
Ultimately Dave (former member of the notorious ''Children of God'') and Cherry's relationship is of no great concern to me. My main concern is seeing people like Joe and all the other ex members reconciled with their families. The best place for Dave would be either a mental institute or jail. At least that way he'd be off our streets and no longer in a position to target and groom young teenagers.

I have heard Cherry described by a very recent x-member as the "Igor" to DM's Dr. Frankenstein, a fawning, loyal lackey eager to do the will of her master. She has been described to me as a very submissive woman who is obedient to DM, and who patiently takes all of his controlling abuse. She has been married to DM for almost fifty years. Chances are, she will never leave him. I also once heard an ex-member's mother tell DM to his face that she felt sorry for his wife (that is, Cherry), and Cherry said, "Don't, please don't." She has chosen to be where she is, and she has chosen to do what she is doing, in my opinion. What a pathetic person she is. I once heard her tell somebody not to feel sorry for her, so on the whole, I don't.

Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
Like you Zeuszor,

I must say that I do not share any particular sympathy for Cherry, for the reasons that you note, and that I personally dislike her....I will give her her due though, that her intervention (and her intervention alone, it seems) was all that prevented McKay from subjecting his own children to the abuse of years of "flirty fishing" for the COG's....since that point, her "record" thins somewhat in my opinion, ...she would otherwise know that she is married to a monster, but no doubt tries to persuade herself that her principle "duty" before God, is merely to be an "obediant wife"....

Quote
zeuszor
DAVE MCKAY ON PEDOPHILIA

[forum.culteducation.com]

Quote
zeuszor
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.

Quote
Stoic
' Al's posts as BigPigWeed, and Glenn's posts as Styxxx, as well as that extremely cruel and hateful post about Denise's daughter, Faith, should make us all want to track down who it is that is playing both sides against the middle.'

Davejc must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel. The above, to me, sounds like a plea for a unified front against the real common enemy, the elusive YouTube Nuisance.

Nice try Davejc, but no cigar.