Dave writes such bull!
Firstly- there are far more non- practising homosexuals in the JC's than Reinhardt. It's just that so few of them are honest about it. There are several people there in co- dependent relationships with other members- after all, apart from the sex- they are getting all the companionship and affection that people would in in a normal relationship.
Note; the case of enmeshment- there were even two JC's who combined their names together on the forum for a while. One is gay- the other has psychological problems- thus a co- dependent relationship is born.
There is another JC who married because he was bi- sexual. Instead of being counselled about their feelings- and true nature- the Jc's are taught to repress themselves- for the " glory of God".
You have to understand- the majority of the group come from conservative or religious backgrounds- so to hear that they're not going to burn in hell- but if they are non- practising and give out enough of Dave's books- they will be saved- is a massive joining point for some people.

DAVID MCKAY CONDONES RACISM AND PEDOPHILIA

Let's see...in the last couple of weeks, we have seen apologists for and supporters of Fred Phelps, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and now Elyas is acting as a COG apologist, telling me to "look at the bright side" of David Berg. Also I have been told to go drink "Jim Jones cordial" and have received a couple of obscene messages lately. This is some great company you keep, David. These are the people that you surround yourself with? This are the theological views that you support? Your sympathizers include admirers of Phred Phelps, MO Berg, and the Klan. This doesn't look good on you, David.

Quote
hello
Dave writes such bull!
Firstly- there are far more non- practising homosexuals in the JC's than Reinhardt. It's just that so few of them are honest about it. There are several people there in co- dependent relationships with other members- after all, apart from the sex- they are getting all the companionship and affection that people would in in a normal relationship.
Note; the case of enmeshment- there were even two JC's who combined their names together on the forum for a while. One is gay- the other has psychological problems- thus a co- dependent relationship is born.
There is another JC who married because he was bi- sexual. Instead of being counselled about their feelings- and true nature- the Jc's are taught to repress themselves- for the " glory of God".
You have to understand- the majority of the group come from conservative or religious backgrounds- so to hear that they're not going to burn in hell- but if they are non- practising and give out enough of Dave's books- they will be saved- is a massive joining point for some people.

Good stuff to bring out, hello. Thanks for that.

A MESSAGE TO CHERRY


Sherian, I have been wondering about you lately and wanted to ask you a few questions. You seem to have been David’s “silent partner” for all of these years, his co-conspirator, as it were. From what I gather you have no contact at all with your children or grandchildren, is that right? My first question to you is: do you actually let David control you that totally? I hate to say, but it looks to me from my POV like you have spent your life under the tyranny of your husband.

What kind of woman would not want contact with her kids and grandkids? You are either totally under DM’s thumb or else just as cold a person as he is, colder even maybe. Which is it? I see you as every bit as complicit as DM, every bit as cold and heartless. Don't you have any kind of maternal instincts?

When WAS the last time that you saw your children or grandchildren, or had any communications with them?

If it is the case that you have not seen your family in a while, why not? When was the last time that you told your children or grandchildren that you love them?

Why do you believe that DM is qualified to lead the JCs if he can’t even lead “his own household?”

casey wrote:
Quote:
David Rutledge: If we look at the practice that some Jesus Christians have made of kidney donation: last year, when the law in NSW said that you’re not allowed to make a kidney donation to a stranger, members of the Jesus Christians who wanted to donate a kidney lied to health authorities, and led them to believe that they had long-term relationships with prospective recipients when they actually didn’t. What did you think of that? Did you approve of that?

Dave McKay: Definitely. Every decision we make, we have to measure the means up against the ends. Tell a lie, save a life. That’s the means and that’s the end. Now, 'have sex with somebody to get a new member', that’s another means and end. And so we have to weigh each one up individually.

David Rutledge: But the Jesus Christians community isn’t just anybody, this is a small group - I would say a vulnerable group - who have this sort of cult baggage around them, that I assume you’d like to get rid of. And to that end, wouldn’t complete openness and transparency be an advantage?

Dave McKay: It was open. We were the ones that went and publicly told the media we'd told a lie. Our teaching is: if you must tell a lie, be honest about your dishonesty.

David Rutledge: Dave McKay, leader of the Jesus Christians movement

So, it's OK to lie when the end justifies the means, Dave?


So, Brian would rather see the person die. We may keep company with people who don't hate JW's, or people who can see at least some good in the early teachings of the CoG's on living by faith, or people who generally don't hate others with the same one track mind as you, but your stance on organ donation certainly does not make you look very good Brian. In your sick obession to destroy us, you would be happy to let someone die if it made us look bad.


Another gross oversimplification, Casey. I would not be happy if somebody died and it made your group look bad, not at all. That is not so. I'd find it quite distressing. You have turned it into a matter of "anti-Jesus Christian means anti-kidney donation means PRO DEATH!!! That evil Brian!"

It's not that simple. In principle, am I all for trying to save somebody's life if I can do so? Of course. Do I believe in helping my follow Earthlings? Certainly. Do I feel like I should donate a kidney and my various other spare parts in order to do these things, and as an expression of my love for and devotion to Jesus? Would I encourage other people to do the same? No way.

Besides, do you realize how much you are mimicking David in your post here? How you seem to be alomost parroting DM? Do you remember Ronson's documentary? Here is a bit of it:

RONSON (VO): I think it’s impossible to be objective about the kidneys. Your opinion changes in relation to the way Dave chooses to take hold of your life. Leisel’s life has been shattered, so she can see little good in it.
Cut to LEISEL: Like, you know, there’s no real plan. Like this kidney thing came to him suddenly so there’s not really any plan for the future here. He can come up with something tomorrow that’s more dangerous than what he’s doing today, and everyone will follow him.
RONSON (VO): Dave wouldn’t talk about Leisel in a face to face interview, but he sent me a message in which he repeatedly apologized for calling her a stalker. But, he said , Annette had joined the group of her own free will and wants to stay with them.
Dave sent me an email. He wrote that Christine in Scotland was dying. He said he could instruct one of his members to give her a kidney, but if he did I’d only accuse him of manipulation. So instead, he wrote, he had decided to let Christine die, and blame her death on my conscience. A few days later he sent me a video message:
Cut to DM: It’s one thirty in the morning here in Australia. I’ve just received an urgent telephone from the United Kingdom. It seems that Christine in Scotland has taken a turn for the worst, and I have to make a decision immediately, if we are going to help her at all. At the moment the only person who’s available in the community to help her is Reinhardt, and he’s booked to fly to India tomorrow morning. The problem with Reinhardt is that although he’s willing to donate, he’s not very keen. I could push him into it. I have to make a decision and there’s a life depending upon it. The decision that I make is going to take into consideration the repercussions for the media, people like yourself. As you know, we stopped the filming after your article appeared in the Guardian. Amongst other things I was upset by the fact that you portrayed me as a manipulator, forcing or coercing Casey into doing something that he might later regret. I think that was terribly unfair, both to Casey and to myself. No way did I push him into doing it. I didn’t even approach him, it was his idea and he ran with it. And that’s why we decided not to cooperate with you. But now after this phone call tonight, I have had to rethink. I am prepared to go along with this documentary but only on one condition and that’s that you use this video. You see, I’m not going to say anything to Reinhardt, I’ll let him fly out tomorrow and I’ll let Christine’s blood be on your head, and the heads of the authorities there in England. Those people who felt that because a group of Christians wanted to donate their kidneys to strangers there was something wrong with us. Something needs to be done about the situation with regard to donations, live donations to people who need kidneys here and in the United Kingdom. So go ahead, make your documentary. But don’t forget to tell them about the recipients. That’s the big picture. And that’s what’s been overlooked, that these recipients are real people, people like Christine. Thank you.
RONSON (VO, later): How could he sit there weighing someone’s life in his hands and then blame me?


Your position is illogical on at least two grounds: one, you are conflating one issue with the other, my position against DM and the JCs with the kidney (and other stuff) donation issue. You are trying to present a case in which Brian doesn't care about dying people because he has it in for the JCS. You can't be serious. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

The other flaw I see in your logic is, again, the black/white thinking and oversimplifications of my position. Being against DM and what he and his family do does not mean that I do not appreciate the help that you have given, and want to continue to give, to these recipients. GOD BLESS YOU FOR YOUR SACRIFICES, CASEY. I REALLY RESPECT THAT, I REALLY DO.

But if you tell me that there is no coercion or manipulation within the group to donate then I'll say that I don't believe you. Of course there is. If you are telling me that DM does not push anyone into anything with respect to donating (or anything else), then I am telling you that I don't believe it. Of course he does. He even said so himself, above:

Quote:
At the moment the only person who’s available in the community to help her is Reinhardt, and he’s booked to fly to India tomorrow morning. The problem with Reinhardt is that although he’s willing to donate, he’s not very keen. I could push him into it. I have to make a decision and there’s a life depending upon it.


He says so himself! He's not above pushing people into doing his will, manipulating them through guilt and shame! That's DM's whole program! And then he tells Ronson the same thing, that obviously he (Ronson) doesn't care about the recipients because he spoke negatively about the JCs in the Guardian article. That he'd rather see people die.

Casey, you sound just like DM, and he said the exact same thing to Ronson. Don't you realize that?

With respect to the kidney matter, the issue is not whether I don't care about dying people, Casey, it's a matter if whether the JCs are being pressured or coerced into donating. I (and others) say that they are.


"One should always play fairly when one has the winning cards. "

OSCAR WILDE

TO CHERRY

DMs position as "leader" of the JCs is in direct contradiction of the Biblical mandate:

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

DAVID MCKAY AND FAVORITISM/NEPOTISM

Dave has made it known in a few posts that he favored Malcolm in the past.

Other point of interest about Dave's favoritism and nepotism:

1) Of the select few who get to reside in the comfortable compound in Kenya, the majority are married couples ( Christine and Rob, Ulrike and Martin, Kim and Fran). There is also Casey but he has shown his worth by not only donating a kidney, but part of his liver; he is clearly one of Dave's golden boys.

For a group that preaches that Virgin Army stuff, it seems it's left to the guys and Grace to carry the torch of pureness. Isn't it rather sad when Dave gets decide who can have sex and who has to have sex with their hands?

Dave has advised that God must come before a husband or wife, and in earlier writing has stated that they should be separated at times. Funny how that doesn't happen in the lives of those who are the elect of the Jesus Christians.

It gives one pause, and makes one wonder why these people are so special; what do they have that people like Barry, Ross, the twins, the single ones in the UK don't have? Joe is a frequent visitor, with the reason being that he can still bring the group publicity. Dave is also keeping Joe out of the country will drive Sheila nuts. Makes me wonder if Ash is the next one for a permanent room at the Kenyan compound, even though Ross has given over 20 years loyal service and has yet to make the grade.

For a group that preaches they are all equal, it is rather sad to see Dave pick a lucky few to get a better life. The Kenya group grow much of their own food, so they don't have to dumpster dive like the USA, UK and Australian teams have to do. No wonder Dave and Cherry are part of that team and not the Australian team. Why don't they live in Kenya? Hmmm...(scratching head) well, maybe because they will lose there pensions (money money money) and of course Kenya is where all the money is/goes. All that money that gets raised on the street, I wonder where it goes and how it gets there? I wonder whose name it's all in? Golly, my guess is that Christine holds the purse strings; her parents can't claim it as their own or else they'd lose their pensions. A large portion of every team's earnings go to the Kenya team, so they can teach their books in school, and sleep in more comfortable beds, and eat better food.

TO CHERRY

Please accept my sincerest apologies, ma'am. I meant no disrespect with my post nor did I set out to attack you personally in any way. I beg your pardon.

Our "beef" is with your husband (as the "leader" of the JCs) and his behavior. This is between us only. I should not written my posts to you in so pointed a manner. Indeed, I should not have involved you at all.

It's not a personal matter between you and I, ma'am. So don't take it personally. It's just that I cannot help but wonder what your role in the whole scheme of things is. After all, you and DM are very close!

Have a good day, and may The Force be with you.

"I don't often use my "divine authority", so if anyone wants an illustration of how it works in practice, here it is!

Just think of Cherry as the real power behind this forum... th Rick Ross of the Jesus Christians. You can hurl abuse at me all you like, but the moment you touch Cherry, you'll be banned permanently... the way anyone who criticises Ricky is banned over on his forum. "

[welikejesus.com]

Dude, listen to this: I know full well of RR's reputation in cult-ed circles and know that in a lot of quarters respect for him and his work is low. One cult-ed researcher of very good repute told me that once RR took some material that she had written and posted it on his website, presenting it as his own. She couldn't do much about it because the material was not copyrighted, and don't know this as a FACT, but I totally take her word for it.

A lot of people in the cult-ed community think that RR is just as narcissistic, manipulative, and generally bad as any of the cult leaders whom he has devoted his life to exposing. What better means of camouflaging oneself?

So what? He does a good service with the resources he makes available to the public. Ole Anthony was, in principle, doing a great service to The Church by investigating the televangelists. Ole Anthony is one crazy fox, a charming snake. I don't know RR in any sense of the word, we have never met face to face, know nothing of his personal life, and don't want to.

I don't care about RR's past history or personal life. RR is not my "leader" and has helped me in the past, asking nothing in return.

At least RR's not Anton Hein! He's a lesser-known cult-ed guy with a REAL sordid past.