Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: yasmin ()
Date: January 17, 2008 11:28PM

To Kirstie, and any others thinking of joining a high demand religious group,
All I can tell you about is my group, and about the experiences of some of my friends. They may or may not apply to your experience. Only you can tell.
In my group, people were genuinely kind and had a strong belief in following God. They were/are good people. I still love them dearly.
Being a child in the group was however an "interesting" experience.
And in many many groups, the pattern is similar.Many parents just do not have time for children.They were less important than that all important following of God( and God's commands whatever they may be). Unfortunately, that time is not able to be got back. And people can tell you how really it is helping the child develop a closer relationship with God from not being too close to you. The child is automatically protected and blessed because you are saved... God should always come first in your life. The child has too much ego and ( fill in the blank) will help the child develop spiritually anyway....
There are all kinds of rationalizations that can sound really good at the time.And you have no idea what good, kind rational people can end up doing to their children in the name of God.

Cultmalleus is right. The love and the sense of being part of a group is amazing. And then ( from my experience in a different group:I've never been in the Jcs, so if this applies you will have to judge for yourself) comes the need to do whatever it takes to show that you are worthy. Where will you draw the line? Will you be able to draw the line when it is all God's will for you? And you will know it is God's will, because you will know that you and your group is more important, more spiritual than anyone else, so what they think is more important than all those people on the outside who are going to hell anyway...
Good luck Kirstie.
I think the worst thing that happens in some groups is that little voice that tells you what is wrong, gets replaced by a group voice that tells you what God is saying.
You ,like all of us make your own choices. It's part of being free to be human. Good luck with everything: (and I love cats!).Yasmin

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: January 18, 2008 04:22AM

Dave advising Kirstie:
Well, congratulations on being able to stand up to them. Do stay humble, however, and keep asking God for his protection, because these are clever, nasty people, and it's not just them that we are fighting; it's the spirit behind them

Kirstie, I have shared about what happened with my son in the group (and they attacked him publicly on their forum accusing him of evil intent on a regular basis by stomping on Cherry feet at the age of two... UPDATE. Dave has now moderated this to it "maybe" happening.), my mothers short association with the group after they asked her to help them set up their trust account before accusing her of trying to steal what was in it with me (a licensed financial advisor by the way), the disconnection of a disabled sick boys electric wheel chair (the boys mother understandably went ballistic at Dave), the rough manhandling by Dave of his son's wife as his followers blocked her exit (she was a non member), the graffitiing of the INSIDE of a church (Dave was angry with the pastor). Is it listening to these things that Dave is congratulating you on standing up about? These are all eye witness accounts by ex members of the group.

Dave has just told you by inference that if you believe an eye witness to these things then you are no longer being "humble". What does humility have to do with listening to an eye witness of an unchristian action? He tells you that if you believe an ex members account it is because you have stopped asking God for protection. That I am a "clever, nasty" person for bringing such actions to light. You will note that Dave has not responded to any of the above, save to deny completely what was said.

Dave goes on to say:
A very simple lesson that I learned many years ago, is that whichever side is hiding from the other is the side that probably does not have the truth. Obviously we don't all have the time to be bothered with every person who comes along and wants to argue; but just have a look around and see who is cowering in fear!

I have been banned from their group forum, time and time again. I am not hiding, and have never hidden from Dave. He knows this. Anyone who disagrees with Dave will soon be expelled from their midst. In time Kirstie you will come to learn this.

Joanne, I do not know how old your child is, but you may be served well asking young Daniel how old he was when he started selling comics, and what age he was when Dave wrote to him telling him he needed to get his OWN relationship with God. Daniel is now 13. He has been selling comics on the street since he was 5. Is this what you really want for your child? Do you want your child to grow up thinking they will go to hell if they do not follow Jesus Christian teachings, and that the whole world is evil, under the control of the devil? If you are a divorcee, has Dave told you yet that you will NEVER be allowed to remarry, as that is sin in their eyes. Or that due to the itinerant lifestyle that is demanded you will have to take your child out of a stable school environment where he/she can make friends and socialise properly in order to live life out of the back of a van teaching him/her yourself, and that any homeschooling is squeezed in around comic selling.

It is a truth, that after a while, you will both get to see the "worse" side to the Jesus Christians. Once you get through all the froth and bubble of the happy smiley faces and discover how hard these faces become when selling quotas are not met, or when you feel a need to spend more time with your child than selling comics. I only hope that when that times comes you are not too indoctrinated to see a way out.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2008 04:23AM by apostate.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: January 18, 2008 05:02AM

Dave's direct quotes will be in italics

I am particularly concerned that people may think we need to tolerate other points of view within our own fellowship which do not support the 144K vision; or that celibacy is not necessarily the preferred option, and the ideal toward which we should all be aiming.

Kirstie and Joanne, the quotes contained in this post are taken from Dave's "Virgin Army 3" article. In it you can clearly see that he is expressing a concern that other points of view are tolerated. This is why I tell you that you will be immediately expelled as soon as you express another point of view. Give it a try. Kirstie, take you cat with you. I am sure Roland and Sue won't mind. Joanne, keep your child in school if he/she is of school age. Do you really think that it matters to God whether someone remains celebate or not, that it is "preferred", and that all of us should view it as an ideal that we should be aiming towards? Really.

Just take a careful look through the ranks of all those couples who have left us and tell me how many husbands are really wearing the pants in those families.

And he accuses me of chauvinism, when in reality he actually teaches it as a way of life in his group.

Marriage is an option; but it is an inferior option. If anyone doesn't like it, they can leave now

Hmm. How does one respond to being told that there marriage is an "inferior" option, a "plan B". Of course he says he is not directly forbidding marriage, as he is married himself and he does not like to appear hypocritical, he is just letting everyone know that by getting married you are following a less than ideal lifestyle. He obviously considers himself as "wearing the pants" in his house. Their community is politically motivated, by that I mean their are are two groups clearly and easily distinguishable, i.e "leaders" and "followers". This applies within marriage as well. Do you like being single Joanne? If you decide to get married you should know right now that you will be viewed as taking a lower path, less than ideal. You will then be forced to live under the original curse of having a man "bear rule over you" as men have to be the one "wearing the pants". It is not about equality in the JC's. It is about submission of followers (i.e. wives) to leaders (i.e. men), and if you are a single woman, you will be required to submit to Dave. Can't have unsubmitted single women running around the place can we?

I don't think I have ever said that we would kick a person out for getting married. After all, I am married myself. But we will still insist that the marriage must be second to the work of the kingdom, and there will be times, as your commanding officers, that we will require you to do things which will force you away from the selfish comforts of your marriage relationship. If the marriage relationship stops you from being able to perform your duties as a soldier, you will not be kicked out for being married; but you may be kicked out for not being able to perform your duties.

Here he is talking about MANDATORY separations of married couples for 3 months of the year. You don't do this, you WILL be kicked out. Don't see much choice here.

And now we come to your child Joanne:
Much the same can be said for having children. We do not forbid it, but we will make demands that will jeopardise your sovereignty over your children, and it will take a very strong commitment to the 144K vision for people to submit to those demands

Take note of this. The group will make demands which will place in jeopardy your right to parental authority over your child. He backs this up by saying that if you do not submit to these demands it is because you do not have a strong commitment to his "Virgin Army".

We have made allowances for married couples to stay on in the community; but the success rate is very low. And the reason is the Jezebel spirit. The wives are not evil in themselves, nor are the children. But the Jezebel spirit uses them both to tear us away from being totally sold out to God. God is a jealous God, and he will not have that.

If any of our men get married and problems arise, we are going to insist that they bring their wives into line... But when you lay down the law of God, they are either going to submit and become true followers of Christ, or they are going to rebel and show themselves to be agents of the devil.

More chauvinistic teaching against women and children.

The instructions we have from scripture are that it's better to stay single, and we should discourage marriage as a general principle

Like I said Joanne and Kirstie seriously think about what is in front of you. At least, by coming here you will entering the group with your eyes wide open.

And now to let Dave have the last word.

For you are the ones who are going to make our little Virgin Army cult most effective!

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2008 05:26AM by apostate.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: January 18, 2008 07:06AM

Dave defending his previous offensive comments:
And we may even have the audacity to say that some of the things Dave (and others) have said in years gone by have been expressed more harshly than we would say them these days

Kindly tell us what you have moderated since then Dave. Which of the above teachings I made reference to no longer apply? How would you say it today? Seeing that all those quotes were taken fron your website this morning, you are in effect still broadcasting them. If you have now changed your approach, kindly modify those teachings to reflect the new you. Doing so will take the wind right out of our sails.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2008 07:08AM by apostate.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: Talamasca ()
Date: January 18, 2008 07:36AM

My understanding of the system in the United Kingdom is this: if anyone with a child joins an organization perceived to be a cult, social services are automatically called in, because the child is deemed to be potentially "at risk".

Can anyone in the UK confirm this?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2008 07:50AM by Talamasca.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: January 18, 2008 08:19AM

Maybe the Rickies HAVE learned a few lessons, as when they thought that Glenn might be contemplating joining us, Glenn received threats against his family, his employer was told that he was using the company computer to post on the JC forum, and they said that it was just a "taste" of what they could do if Glenn continued to support us.

Dave, you KNOW that this did not happen. Glenn's employer was NOT contacted, there were NO threats made against Glenns family. Is this your journalistic LIEcense at work?

Still waiting for you to show us all how much you have grown spiritually, and how you would be saying things differently in thse currently preached teachings.

Tell us how you would revise this with your new found spiritual growth

Much the same can be said for having children. We do not forbid it, but we will make demands that will jeopardise your sovereignty over your children, and it will take a very strong commitment to the 144K vision for people to submit to those demands

then you could revise this one

If any of our men get married and problems arise, we are going to insist that they bring their wives into line

Please inform Kirstie and Joanne how women are brought "into line".

I know you did some pretty rough manhandling of Liz, and forced Yesamma to agree to wear a toilet cleaners uniform before allowing the marraige to go ahead.

Please tell us how a more spiritually mature person would now moderate such teachings and demands.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: January 18, 2008 08:42AM

Quoting Lisa:
In fact, X's upbringing is better than mine in this respect-- he's being raised in a faith that is inclusivist, that thinks sincerity is more important than religion. Unlike my own Evangelical upbringing-- which taught me that even theologically wobbly Christians were going to hell.

From this point on I am going to censor any reference to this child's name in my posts, as I do not think it is appropriate for him to be identified publicly in this manner.

Rick could you go back on my posts and change this child's name to an "X" symbol. Thanks.

Lisa, you are being totaly naive if you think the JC's are inclusive. Their small numbers and extreme beliefs of whipping people, demanding that comic selling quota's are met all point to their exclusivity.

How DARE you imply that he's been damaged by his upbringing.

Take a look at Dave's current track record of itinerant preaching with kids in tow.

But dissing the JCs for something that EVERY mainstream Christians church teaches seems a little silly too.

I am actually "dissing" the JC's for their actions Lisa. I did not see you jump to the defence of my son when Dave publicly accused him of evil intent when he was two. You present yourself as an even handed person. Frankly I expected much more of you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: Jack Oskar Larm ()
Date: January 18, 2008 09:04AM

blackhat, thanks for bringing up the topic of the Shadow.

The archetype known as the Shadow represents the energy of the dark side, the unexpressed, unrealised, or rejected aspects of something. Often it's the home of the suppressed monsters of our own inner world. Shadows can be all the things we don't like about ourselves, all the dark secrets we can't admit, even to ourselves. The Shadow can also shelter positive qualities that are in hiding or that we have rejected for some reason.

The Shadow can represent the power of repressed feelings. Deep trauma or guilt can fester when exiled to the darkness of the unconscious, and emotions hidden or denied can turn into something monstrous that wants to destroy us. The Shadow may simply be that shady part of ourselves that we are always wrestling with in struggles over bad habits and old fears. This energy can be a powerful internal force with a life of its own and its own set of interests and priorities. It can be a destructive force, especially if not acknowledged, confronted, and brought to light.

Like all other archetypes, Shadows can express positive as well as negative aspects. The Shadow in a person's psyche may be anything that has been suppressed, neglected or forgotten. The Shadow can shelter the healthy, natural feelings we believe we're not supposed to show. But healthy anger or grief, if suppressed in the territory of the Shadow, can turn to harmful energy that strikes out and undermines us in unexpected ways. The Shadow may also be unexplored potential, such as affection, creativity, or psychic ability, that goes unexpressed.

Quoted from Christopher Vogler's, The Writer's Journey (based on the work of C. J. Jung and Joseph Campbell).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: Blackhat ()
Date: January 18, 2008 01:31PM


"I'm just shifting this over to the Quaker section of the forum, now that it is opened, because it seems more appropriate for it to be there"


Hahaha! Funny, that was the first thing I thought when I read the posting yesterday. Who knows? Who cares?


Anyhow folks, it seems that if you remain anonymous on this forum long enough, and you challenge Zeuszor on his posting slander, you get harassed by him to reveal who you are, much the way David McKay gets obsessed with who people are. I still think the two of them are obverse sides of the one obsessive coin. He wants to be in control of everyone on HIS forum just as David does.

Of course we all wonder who people are, especially when we become married to each other in DM's fantasy land. I don't mind being asked, I have asked myself, and I respect people when they say they want to stay anonymous.

Read the forum rules.

But at the end of the day, I for one, do not wish to be harassed and intimidated into revealing my personal details as a condition of not being banned on this forum as an infiltrator. (Yes folks, it's true, although all those of you who have been at this SO much longer than me are probably not surprised that Zeuszor could threaten to do this) It's not that I believe he could, he has no grounds other than my anonymity. Oh, and apparently I am just too clever to be a little old Granny!!!!! It just makes me feel stalked and intimidated.

Read the forum rules!

I could report him to Rick Ross for the way he has threatened me, but that's not my style. I'd rather just retire (kind of Quakerly, don't you think?)

Now when I came here and said what I was about, I explained that I was appalled that the Jesus Christians seemed to have infiltrated the Quakers, and were hiding behind their respectability.

Well, I am glad I had my chance to do what I could to help the Quakers get a real perspective on the Jesus Christians. That seems to be a done thing now. I have absolutely no interest in or connection with the Jesus Christians, a minor and relatively insignificant cult. So there is really nothing much more I have to offer to this forum. I've done my research, posted what I could, and at the end of the day, succeeded in what I wanted.

I've decided to bow out now, rather than continue to endure harassment and bullying from Zeuszor (yes, that person I posted a big defence of only a few days ago). No doubt he'll be back within the two weeks David challenged him, just to say that this proves I was an infiltrator. I understand that he might not be able to see that he has deeply hurt me after all my hard work. It pales into insignificance in comparison to his own, so he's the boss of this Forum.

So it's goodnight from me, and thank you to everyone else for all the kind PMs you have sent me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: January 18, 2008 02:38PM

Behold the "NEW" spirtually mature Dave, as he revises past offensive comments:

The fact that you were either unable or unwilling to teach your son to show some respect for elders (at least to the extent of him ceasing physical assaults on adults) made him intolerable within the community, and I think we were all somewhat relieved to see the back side of you as you left with him in tow.

the one who deliberately stamped on Cherry's feet, when he knew that it would cause excruciating pain, and clearly delighted in the pain that it caused.

Are you still treating her like dirt, and teaching your son to do the same thing?
(he is referring to my wife)

And that's before we even get to Christine, the most fully developed of them all!

Please tell us Dave how you think your children will view this comment about their sister, and why you think it is not untrue and offensive.

It still amazes me that you can unashamedly tell a bold face lie about my son delighting in the pain he caused another individual. I think you obviously realise I find this offensive, hence your continued public slanders of him. It is also telling that you have free reign to publish whatever slanderous accusations you like on your forum, as none of your followers seem able to say "steady on Dave... that was a bit rough". It seems Glenn is the only one I have seen say anything to you of a moderating nature, but you just discount his comments flippantly.

This, however, is a GOOD change:

I definitely would not talk about men "bringing their wives into line",

Have you changed this approach now because you saw it as offensive and degrading to women, made at a time of spiritual immaturity? Can you now see that such comments and perspective were responsible for gendering a large degree of the strife in your community between you and the rest of ex members? Comments like this were what was responsible for the split that occurred. Can you see this now?

Dave you recetly said to Kirstie that ex members are over here "cowering in fear". Let's have an open debate in an unmoderated venue where you do not have the power to ban or silence me, or other ex members, because you don't like what we have to say, or is it you who is doing all the cowering. I think you have far more time on your hands than do I, so the excuse about me having too much time on my hands is a bit flawed.

Oh, and for the record, Glenn has sent me a PM saying that his father was threatened in an email he received a while back. I am waiting to see a copy of this email. As a result I also state again that I do not support or promote any kind of threats against individuals. If I was wrong in my previous comments when I said Glen's father was not threatened, or his work was not contacted I apologise Glen and definately do as you request and "recant".

Options: ReplyQuote

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.