Here is a copy of a recent posting of mine on Livingdonorsonline...it relates to a patent lie of David to have no knowledge of the interview with Jon Ronson from the UK (an interview where the reporter actually "lived" with the JesusChristians for several days)....could those still active on the site take it up...if David is (yet again) able to cajole the moderators to "bump" it.....(May I ask if our Moderator knows of this organization?....they are based in Georgia...I have alread directly sent one of the moderators the Fox coverage in the which Rick address the program...with no reply!)

Posted June 6th.....

On the thread our noble moderator (Karol I believe!) saw fit to close, David SPECIFICALLY stated that he had had never heard of the reporter "Ron Johnson" nor of the person requiring a kideny in the UK at the time that David wrote tell "Ron" he would allow to die, in order that "Ron" might be better "rebuked"....(a link was provided to the interview downloadable from the net)...which several of you of course personaly witnessed.....I corrected my typological error (it was Jon Ronson) shortly before the thread was pulled....

I attach a recent posting from David on his own web-site...


>The ABC is the one that was going to give them GOOD press if the
operation
>had gone ahead. They had no intention of doing anything harmful to
their
>reputation. But it is obviously the CNN coverage (and Jon Ronson's
>documentary) that they are frightened of... the gutter press... and
the
>guttersnipes who promote that approach like Nick and Kate.
>
>Well, folks, we can all look forward to seeing what the ABC has to say
on
>Monday night, 8pm.

where David SPECIFICALLY mentions the very reporter I cited and which he previously denied all knowledge of....

He has made a bare-faced lie....(Yes I await your comments Karol....this email has been copied and will be made directly available to every member on your Board of Directors if you choose to "vet" it because David cries "Wolf" yet again)

...as I said at the time we can only wonder how many more "expendable" people there may have been along the way....

Its' of no consequence ethically that David has become your "buddy" on this forum because of the "nice things" he has had to say over the years...

Unless you are completely gullible the man has just proven ON THIS SITE why he is untrustworthy and thus why he should not be seen to be "involved" in the nomination of members of an organization where he holds sway, for "altruistic" donations, in any way

(.....Close posting!)

Wow, what a spirited and interesting debate for 73 pages. I must admit, I only read the first dozen or so before deciding I had got the spirit of it and needed to row in.

To put my comments in context, let me tell you where I come from. I am a practicing Anglican from the extremely liberal end of the theological spectrum. So I sometimes joke that I have more in common with atheists than traditional or biblical Christians, particularly when it comes to science and pragmatism. I am therefore completely at odds with any literal interpretation of the Bible. I am incredibly skeptical about all religious practice although I try to be respectful of people and their beliefs as well. And I have had plenty of experience of 'cultish' behaviour in Protestant fundamentalism and Catholic extremism.

And, I know three Jesus Christians, including Ash, the subject of the documentary. None are close friends, per se, but I would count them as friends.

When I first met these people I knew I had little in common with their brand of Christianity, and I wanted to be able to discount them as loony cultists, but it wasn't that easy. They were all really down to earth, friendly people who cared about the world and issues, and had the radical action mantra that many of us sang from the rooftops from our Uni days and still sympathised with. I know I was a member of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and so on.

I was impressed that these guys were willing to give so much time and effort to campaigning against the Australian government's appalling treatment of refugees, and I was intrigued by the kidney donation thing as I had contemplated this for myself in the past and to some extent still do. Of the three JCs I know, two have already donated kidneys and the third is Ash.

On the other side, whilst none of them have ever tried to 'convert me' or even show me one of their books, I am sure I'd hate every word of them as I would view them as fundamentalist nonsense. But that's not reflected in the three JCs I know who are just decent guys, likable, thinking, caring, Alternative, yes. Eccentric, perhaps. But so what?

Now this debate has had its fair share of anti-JCs quoting madly from some of the bad press that JCs receive as if the perpetual repetition of the same bad press somehow goes to strengthen their argument against the JCs. It does not. There have been three or four odd incidents, certainly. It would appear that people have joined the group against the wishes of parents and rellies who have then spat the dummy. Now the JCs should have stayed away from minors in situations like that, and that shows an appalling lack of judgment on the part of their leader, which is shameful and may or may not be sinister. The mock trial and whipping business is just weird and also reflects very poorly on DM

But as for adults joining this group, in a democracy they have the right to do what they like, and join any group they wish. The three JCs I know are very clearly not being 'mind controlled' and don't seem to revere Dave McK as a guru. And the fact that these long since dispensed with allegations of kidnapping are still being bandied about as if mudslinging were somehow rational argument is ridiculous.

And this forum debate has been very enlightening. RR and others seem to start from an a priori assumption that this is a mind control cult. I suspect that if I didn't know any of the JCs I would probably start from the same position. But there is a clear evidence of facts provided for this, just a rehashing of the same old bad press. And when one or two JCs like Fran come in they are accused of being apologists and their arguments discounted. Actually, Frans arguments were well put and thought out and showed no signs of apologistics, but she was treated quite dismissively by some on this forum who claim to be rationalist, but are as fervently fundamentalist in a way as those whom they oppose.

But then DM came on, and very quickly lost his cool and became petty and insulting, making little snipes at people. And that told me more about him than I previously knew.

So my summary. Are the JCs a cult--dunno, maybe, but if they are there are far more dangerous cults out there, including the Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, Tridentenes and so on. Are they exercising mind control over their followers, influencing them to give kidneys and so on. Not from what I’ve seen. Does it occur to anyone that people with pre-held beliefs and sympathies might band together, rather than come in mindless and be given beliefs?

I was amused when Ash in the documentary says that people might think that he is naive, idealistic and so on. Indeed, maybe he is a little, but what exactly is wrong with that, within reason?

picard2bridge:

Yes, there are more dangerous "cults" than the Dave McKay's "Jesus Christians."

There are groups that routinely encourage their members to refuse medical care, stockpile weapons, sexually abuse and/or physically abuse children.

But this doesn't ameliorate the facts regarding Dave McKay and the damage he does to his followers.

McKay often comes across as a narcissistic megalomaniac.

First, he used his own family as his initial group of followers, though eventually three of his children waliked away.

Perhaps the most telling part of his extended interview with ABC in Australia is his comments about them.

There doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason to leave Dave McKay.

Now he targets young idealistic people (e.g. 18-26) at a transitional time in their lives to become his vessels, or some might say "pawns."

But based upon McKay's comments about living off of his wife's pension and other government funds it doesn't seem that he is planning anything dark, like a group suicide.

Instead, McKay seems content live off of and manipulate others for the attention he craves, even if it means surrendering a loyal acolyte's kidney to get him more media coverage.

Not a nice man, but admittedly not as bad as Charles Manson or Jim Jones.

However, this is little consolation for all the individuals and families he has hurt.

Quote
picard2bridge
And, I know three Jesus Christians, including Ash, the subject of the documentary. None are close friends, per se, but I would count them as friends.

When I first met these people I knew I had little in common with their brand of Christianity, and I wanted to be able to discount them as loony cultists, but it wasn't that easy. They were all really down to earth, friendly people who cared about the world and issues, and had the radical action mantra that many of us sang from the rooftops from our Uni days and still sympathised with. I know I was a member of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and so on.

I was impressed that these guys were willing to give so much time and effort to campaigning against the Australian government's appalling treatment of refugees, and I was intrigued by the kidney donation thing as I had contemplated this for myself in the past and to some extent still do. Of the three JCs I know, two have already donated kidneys and the third is Ash.

Picard, I could easily have been seen like this by you while I was with the JC's too. Remember, all us ex members were, at one stage, very excited and eager to join what seemed like a really idealistic and sincere group of people, who actually seemed to DO idealistic things and not just talk about them.

Quote

On the other side, whilst none of them have ever tried to 'convert me' or even show me one of their books, I am sure I'd hate every word of them as I would view them as fundamentalist nonsense. But that's not reflected in the three JCs I know who are just decent guys, likable, thinking, caring, Alternative, yes. Eccentric, perhaps. But so what?

Now this debate has had its fair share of anti-JCs quoting madly from some of the bad press that JCs receive as if the perpetual repetition of the same bad press somehow goes to strengthen their argument against the JCs. It does not. There have been three or four odd incidents, certainly. It would appear that people have joined the group against the wishes of parents and rellies who have then spat the dummy. Now the JCs should have stayed away from minors in situations like that, and that shows an appalling lack of judgment on the part of their leader, which is shameful and may or may not be sinister. The mock trial and whipping business is just weird and also reflects very poorly on DM

But as for adults joining this group, in a democracy they have the right to do what they like, and join any group they wish. The three JCs I know are very clearly not being 'mind controlled' and don't seem to revere Dave McK as a guru.

You can only see the outside layer. We are all encouraged to present a good face to the world, to "cover" our leadership. Yes, they are all nice guys! Dave likes to prey on such. Initially, it seems like the community has a fair bit of discussion and democracy. It's a bit like being a frog in increasingly warming up water. You accept more and more crap because you think it's worth it because of the idealistic things you do. You start to realise how much control Dave has and how impossible it is to go against him in any major way. He will not give up in a group discussion until he wins. Group members learn that the easy way is to agree with him, then you can get some sleep. The members now are probably more compliant, in the past it was not unusual to have all night meetings that would go on and on until all resistance was crushed.

Quote

And this forum debate has been very enlightening. RR and others seem to start from an a priori assumption that this is a mind control cult. I suspect that if I didn't know any of the JCs I would probably start from the same position. But there is a clear evidence of facts provided for this, just a rehashing of the same old bad press. And when one or two JCs like Fran come in they are accused of being apologists and their arguments discounted. Actually, Frans arguments were well put and thought out and showed no signs of apologistics, but she was treated quite dismissively by some on this forum who claim to be rationalist, but are as fervently fundamentalist in a way as those whom they oppose.

I was disappointed that Fran was treated dismissively. I thought the debate I had with him was good and fair. I hope that there is less "knee jerk" reactions against suspected apologists. It only entrenches positions.

Quote

But then DM came on, and very quickly lost his cool and became petty and insulting, making little snipes at people. And that told me more about him than I previously knew.

Yes. Dave shows his colours pretty quickly and easily. He is a bully and very controlling and a micromanager. It's good he is so transparent, really, it has probably helped keep his recruitment down to such small levels.

Quote

So my summary. Are the JCs a cult--dunno, maybe, but if they are there are far more dangerous cults out there, including the Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, Tridentenes and so on. Are they exercising mind control over their followers, influencing them to give kidneys and so on. Not from what I’ve seen. Does it occur to anyone that people with pre-held beliefs and sympathies might band together, rather than come in mindless and be given beliefs?

I was amused when Ash in the documentary says that people might think that he is naive, idealistic and so on. Indeed, maybe he is a little, but what exactly is wrong with that, within reason?

I think it's great that people are idealistic. I think it's horrible when that idealism is exploited and abused. There are many organisations that are not "total" organisations which I believe are much better avenues for idealism. Organisations that you can join and leave with a handshake and good mutual feelings at both ends. Organisations that are publicly accountable and transparent and democratic. Organisations commited to long term success instead of short term stunts. Organisations that tolerate and celebrate diversity. Australian Volunteers International are one such body. Uniting Church missions are another. There are many others.

More than anything, Dave brings hope for hurting idealistic youngsters for a father figure they have lacked in their lives. A man who cares enough supposedly to bring them in to his "family". This is the main attraction. This trust is abused and exploited. I can't think of one JC that has a good relationship with their father.[/quote]

[www.culteducation.com]

Hi All
I just read the article from the link.? I wonder who is talking for who.?
I read such nice things that was said by ash (and yes he has a willing and helping spirit).
The copy and paste I added before. I am sure that must have been dave that was using his name.
Anyway no matter>>>>>>>
All my love goes to all you very hard working people here on the site!!
And look forward to getting to know you all and helping in anyway.
I tried to post answers on Australian Story Forum but must be locked out. And have been locked out of welikejesus (what is it with that name they only LIKE him).
Be Strong All the foundations are cracking !!!!!!
Oops think he got the wrong media attention he wanted!!!!!!! lmbo
:lol:

Quote

... and the guttersnipes who promote that approach like Nick and Kate.

Another example of Dave's bullying

From the online dictionary:

[www.thefreedictionary.com]

gut·ter·snipe (gtr-snp)
n.
1. A street urchin.
2. A person of the lowest class

How does Ash feel about Dave calling his mum this?

Of course it is a "test" of Ash's "pride" and his ability to "forsake his family" and "smash his pride".

Picard2bridge: here we see the spiritual nature of David McKay.

Very sad. Idealists who just want to serve God with every atom of their existence are, unfortunately, vulnerable to people like McKay.

Quote
cultmalleus
More than anything, Dave brings hope for hurting idealistic youngsters for a father figure they have lacked in their lives. A man who cares enough supposedly to bring them in to his "family". This is the main attraction. This trust is abused and exploited. I can't think of one JC that has a good relationship with their father.

Hear Hear. This hits the nail on the head, Cultmalleus.
Dave has filled the role of Ashwyn's natural father beautifully, and is not afraid to step into mine either.
First love lost is another conditioning factor that makes for a good prospect.

A further definition of 'guttersnipe' from Princeton University's WordNet source:

[b:c7844904e4]guttersnipe

noun
a child who spends most of his time in the streets especially in slum areas [syn: street urchin]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.[/b:c7844904e4]

Hmmm, interesting that McKay would use that particular word.

Quote
rrmoderator
... After more than 10 weeks in Canada, Mr Falkingham is still waiting to hear whether the transplant will be approved.

10 weeks abroad? How do the JCs manage to fund such expensive ventures?