Quote
zeuszor
This is too much.

I feel like that guy in the movie, "The Good Shepherd."

Dr. Fredericks: Get out while you still can. While you still believe. While you still have a soul.

Blackhat (aka Anita Kay) just sent me this PM:

You got the wrong person. Private Eyes is the Double Agent.

Now I know that something is not right about Blackhat. Eyes is NOT a double agent. Why would he have sent me ALL THAT DATA if he was working for the JCs? That does not make sense, even for DM.

Prove it, Anita Kay.

Blackhat lied about her ID and when we checked the Australian Electoral rolls and phone listings we found that nobody by that name ("Anita Kay") exists.

Then this person adfmitted that "she" lied. ...

End Quot frm Zeusor




R u the Jestapo R wot ..

U say ' We'.........U an who?

Man... dis plais b mad. 1984



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2008 03:04AM by free of DM.

After pondering upon Dave's response a bit more. I just gotta respond some more because it is such a cop out, and one which he would never allow one of his underlings to get away with. So having said that, and bearing in mind that what is good for the goose is good for the gander... (His stuff is in italics)


Dave said:
I freely admit that I cannot think of a single time that I have criticised someone in the community when I felt that I handled it perfectly. So I could end up apologising almost for being alive. I try to learn from each mistake that I make, and I think there are some offenses that need a specific apology; but in the end, you can't be apologising for everything you do, just because it's not perfect.


It is strange that Dave can freely admit to always failing to be perfect and yet stated in one of his articles to having no regrets in his life (apart from time wasted with undeserving 'churchies') At least one of these statements must be insincere rhetoric. For one who demands unqualified apologies from disciples who cross him, the "nobody's perfect" line sounds like a cop out from actually facing anything.


And again:
I think of the passage where Jesus says to the Jews, "You, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children." I think this is something that every parent and every leader has experienced, where we know that we are "evil" in the sense that we are imperfect, but sometimes we just have to believe that we are trying, and that sincere followers/children will ultimately come back to that and recognise the bigger picture rather than remain bitter all their lives for that time when THEY think you were unfair, when YOU think that you just overstated the fault a bit.

The sincere leader/parent may actually repent for his errors and seek to restore relations with those they have driven away, or at the very least end the bitter rants about how unjustly abandoned and insincere their adult "followers/children" are for not returning for more.

and again:
I also can appreciate that those who were in the community in the early days experienced a lot more impatience from me than do members today. But the strangest thing is that it has not been the people who I blew up at who became bitter and angry. It has already been said that Malcolm and Craig were "favorites". Kev and I had TONS of arguments, but Kev always dished out as good as he got, and so I don't think he has much to be bitter about either. I hardly ever said a negative word to or about Boyd and Sheri. Attila and Jessica were only occasionally criticised.
I would say that Ross, Roland, and Sue are the three who experienced more impatience from me than anyone else in the history of the community; and yet they are still around. Not because I am so "charismatic" but more or less IN SPITE OF me... because they are so interested in serving God that they have chosen to forgive me for my harshness. I very much appreciate that from them.


It is curious the way Dave excuses his "impatience" by pointing out that some of the most abused remain in his service. In Dr Z's Stanford's Prison experiment 'prisoner 819' who had been reduced to an emotional wreck, hung around to prove he was a "good prisoner" and it could be argued that someone like Ross has been doing that so long he is incapable of leaving. But the fact that Dave has turned on those who he acknowledges were his "favourites" and says such awful things about us, predating his criticisms to include the time when we were the privileged few, extending our "evil" to that of our infant children, just shows what little esteem he really has for anyone beyond their role in propping up his importance. If the new improved 'patient' Dave can put such rot on public record the faithful JC can expect a pretty rough time as soon as they cross Dave. It is good that Dave can acknowledge giving out "TONS" on his son but bizarre that he can figure because Kevin gave back as good as he got, he has nothing to be bitter about. And despite Boyd and Sheri hardly saying a negative word against Dave (they just quietly walked away when Dave tried to enlist their support to remove his son and his favoured deputy, me) they and their children have been ostracised for sending birthday greetings and family newsletters to the community and labelled as "enemies posing as friends". Whether one surrenders to it, stands up against it, or quietly walks away, abuse is abuse and Dave needs to face up to his responsibility as a leader with plenty to regret, and apologise for. Perhaps he's worried that once he starts unravelling that piece of string he will end up have to apologise for almost his whole life work (as alluded to at the beginning of his post), and its just easier to keep on digging the same grave.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2008 09:48AM by apostate.

I have been thinking about the biblical role of prophet within what is presented as the "church"/"body of Christ", and that Dave is praising past ones while stoning living ones. Prophet meaning critic, that is. It is so important for any organisation to have its critics/prophets as it helps balance things out and opens eyes to blind spots where people may be experiencing abuse. In the world, some organisations employ troubleshooting consultants, such is the importance placed upon a critical perspective coming through a work place... an ethical audit if you like. If they pass they get accredited, if not they are told they have to meet certain standards of behavior before they will be recognised as actually providing a worthwhile service to those in their client base. The critics/prophets are generally not from within the organistion as it is proven that doing so will not provide truthful evaluations as there are pressures on those within to water down any criticism that the organisation needs to hear. We have already seen that no Jesus Christian is actually able to say NO to Dave, or to disagree, hence the importance of him submitting to and adhering to outside criticism and counsel.

Any job I apply for always ask how I thought the previous work place could have been improved, or what I considered a weakness of it. The prospective employers are looking to see if you can think critically, and communicate that criticism in a constructive manner. This seems to be largely missing from the Jesus Christians, as they are quite closed to letting others utilise their gifts/skills (if criticism can be labelled as such). As result they will continue to wreak pain and suffering to those who disagree with their status quo, and are by and large unsuccessful in their attempts to grow. They will not grow while maintaining their current modus operandi. They do in fact represent the "old wineskin" trying as hard as hell to keep the "new wine" out for fear of bursting asunder. It is a valid fear because the criticism and direction they need to take on board WILL rip their wineskin apart, and this quite frankly terrifies Dave. he does not know what format his group will take on. The first change will be that it will no longer be HIS group, it may not even be a visible group any longer. As long as Dave lives in fear and teaches others to do the same he and they will not enter a place of harmony with others (no "promised land" of peace). But instead will be relegated to the junk heap of failed ideological personality driven movements continually denying the very real cause and effect they are generating.

Dave continues to ignore the critics/prophets that come his way by calling his followers attention to the way they speak, dress, or don't line up with their groups norms as a way of somehow discounting the criticism/message being delivered. He offers up words which tell his auditors that he admits that he did wrong things in the past, but actually does nothing to right and wrongs. Those his organisation have trampled on in the past still stand outside the gates demanding an apology from him. Dave is doing as some main line churches do by attempting to silence its critics and cover up past abuses of its members.

Just some musings. What do others think?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2008 10:37AM by apostate.

Casey said:
They want you to lose your mind, act emotional and then say something stupid because you've been blinded by the anger you feel at having been accused of something so false.

Do you really think we want you to "lose your mind"? Are you having to exercise that degree of self control during these debates? That is a lot of expended energy? What is it you are trying to hide?

Dave continues to ignore the critics/prophets that come his way by calling his followers attention to the way they speak, dress, or don't line up with their groups norms as a way of somehow discounting the criticism/message being delivered. He offers up words which tell his auditors that he admits that he did wrong things in the past, but actually does nothing to right and wrongs. Those his organisation have trampled on in the past still stand outside the gates demanding an apology from him. Dave is doing as some main line churches do by attempting to silence its critics and cover up past abuses of its members.

Just some musings. What do others think?


3Jo 1:9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.

3Jo 1:10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.

3Jo 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.

Consider the case of Diotrephes...

[www.thefaithfulword.org]

I could not resist putting my two cents' worth on this (IMO very good) point that the apostate makes....



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2008 11:26AM by zeuszor.

Rob wrote concerning a fictitious story based on a true story that Liesel is reportedly writing:

"I don't think the judge is going to be so dumb as to not see that she is trying to slander real people through her chilling account "based on a true story".
Usually people have to pay royalties if they want to use your story. Maybe we should sue for royalties as well as lible, slander and psychological trauma"
[welikejesus.com]

Despite the usual lies and slander, Dave should be commended for recently warning his followers not to use arguments against critics that they were no prepared to face themselves. Here are a few examples of how the same argument might come back at you.

If people could be sued for writing fictition based on true stories, Dave could be sued for his book Cry in the Wilderness which was a thinly disguised reference to Michael and Lindy Chamberlain and the dingo attack on their daughter Azaria, in which the fictitious story suggests they were concealing a crime committed by their church, which I reckon most courts would find slanderous against both the individuals and the church they represented, particularly when she was finally vindicated as innocent.

As for paying royalties to the individuals whose stories are indirectly told; What about the seven individuals whose stories were told in the two versions of the Nullarbor walk, and the refugees whose personal stories were recounted in Worst of Woomera?

Perhaps Dave should point out to Robin that royalties are most commonly paid to the author/illustrator of works that are published, which raises the question of whether the Jesus Christians have been paying royalties to Kevin for their use of his comic illustrations and illustrated Easy English programme.

And as for "lible, slander and psychological trauma..." You should not need a lawyer to warn you of the consequences of opening the door on that line of accusation!

Quote
apostate
[b

If people could be sued for writing fictition based on true stories, Dave could be sued for his book Cry in the Wilderness which was a thinly disguised reference to Michael and Lindy Chamberlain and the dingo attack on their daughter Azaria, in which the fictitious story suggests they were concealing a crime committed by their church, which I reckon most courts would find slanderous against both the individuals and the church they represented, particularly when she was finally vindicated as innocent.......................The question of whether the Jesus Christians have been paying royalties to Kevin for their use of his comic illustrations and illustrated Easy English programme.

So you are saying that David is continuing to get income from selling comics Kevin illustrated? Even though Kevin has left? Do you know if he signed a waiver?

I didn't realise David wrote a book "Cry in the Wilderness". Where can I see it?

Kevin's name is acknowledged on the original Easy English books and Liberator comic along with Dave's but I don't believe he ever signed anything.

The "book" Cry in the Wilderness was printed up as short story in 1982 in the primitive style of their early literature according to the testimony of those who distributed it.

Christine wrote regarding the Quakers:

"While people fail to address the issue of gossip, they have already taken a side, whether they care to admit it or not."
[welikejesus.com]

The charge that the Quakers have been unethical in the way they have withdrawn their fellowship with the Jesus Christians is apparently hypocritical when one reads the wild speculations that Dave publishes against them and certain individuals as asserted facts with no consideration to their rights to natural justice, that it barely needs to be pointed out. But as Dave has been warning his followers not to use arguments against critics that they were not prepared to face themselves, I thought it appropriate to ask Christine how the period of thirteen days when she entered closed discussions with the members of the JC's based in India to present her case against certain JC members in Australia is any different to the closed discussions and "gossip" they accuse the Quakers of, particularly when in her case the accused were denied an opportunity to even hear the charges that were made against them until her 'posse' delivered their verdict and identified the scapegoat who needed to be "tossed overboard". Despite the projected lies told to try and obscure this truth, the fact is that ALL of those who were blocked out of that discussion left the community when the 'lynch mob' failed to address this issue and continued their subversive ways. The Jesus Christians remind me of the "unforgiving servant" (Mtt 18: 21-35) who despite their good fortune in not being held to account for the great debt they owe to others, proceed to demand every penny they believe others owe them.

Dave wrote: (http://welikejesus.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=16542&sid=f5e66adb7d6009ec193de9dbc829867f#16542)
"An excellent illustation, Josh. I have always wondered that Bonhoeffer was considered such a hero, first, for having plotted to kill someone, and second, for failing at it. I reasoned that he is only remembered because he was so good with words, i.e. with justifying his position."

Dave is condemning someone for both his rationalisation and his actions on an issue that matches his hypothetical, which only proves how Dave thinks he will be remembered because he is so good with words, i.e. not only in justifying his shifting hypotheticals, but in condemning everyone else to ensure he has no equal.

and again:
"It's not that I thought his position was evil. He certainly did wrestle with the issues, and his action was far better than the widespread inaction (or indifference) of those who did not want to get their hands dirty. But on the whole, the problem with violence is that we don't know the future, and there are so many other factors which can come into play."

Exactly right. While we think we can be God's instrument in taking out a crazed killer who in the circumstances of Dave's original hypothetical (ie religious riots) no doubt sees himself as implementing Jihad against others he sees as a threat to his community, we become part of the whole mess that such conflicts are made of.

and again:
"What I was trying to do with my crazed killer illustration in India was to create a scenario where one could pretty well guarantee the factors, both that the killer would be killing many more, and that the ony way to stop him would be to kill him (and not just to maim him). Of course, the runaway train illustration is much better, though still not foolproof."


No doubt we would all like scenarios that justify us playing God, but Dave should refer to his argument against Bonhoffer (previous paragraph) and see how those who opposed Dave's simplistic scenarios used exactly the same line of logic.

and again:
"The person who sent the train illustration to me this week is so extreme in his stand against violence that he SAYS he would not pull the switch on the train either. I found that very hard to believe. I am sure that we could find even more and more innocent illustrations where eventually people WOULD act... which, of course, is the real point of the exercise, i.e. to stop people from feeling self-righteous about exactly where THEY would draw the line. Do we necessarily have to say that every such decision is the same as the reasoning that goes into all wars? I don't think so."


Why, not? Dave finds it hard to believe there are people who wouldn't act in the scenarios Dave paints, but those who opposed Hitler would say Dave's condemnation of someone who tried to stop him killing millions more than the crazed individual in Dave's imagination, is monstrously hypocritical. Dave seems to think his experience and imagination is somehow uniquely different to everyone else as he just plays with words to condemn both the committed pacifist and those prepared to put his rhetoric into action.

and again: (starting to get painful now)
"For me, of course, the issue is not violence but hatred, whether it is war, crazed killers, or runaway trains. People can totally destroy someone's reputation through gossip, for example, and still argue that they have not used violence; whereas they can condemn the Jesus Christians for a mock trial in which we inflicted pain on ourselves as a demonstration of our love. (These same people, by the way, also condemn the Christian teaching that the execution of Jesus was a demonstration of God's love.) It just doesn't make sense to me... not when you see hatred as the greatest evil, and not violence."

Hitler did not "hate" the millions his ideology destroyed. He was just rationally following through his line of reasoning, and like Bonhoffer many who go to war do so with a sense of duty, not hatred. Many peopled are killed for other reasons and I would have thought "greed" would be mentioned as the root of all evil if Dave is looking for simplistic notions that can return some virtue to violence. The defence offered for violence that is free of "hatred" could be another glimpse into the blind spots in Dave's imagination. Seriously, the idea of hate free violence is behind the chivalric principles of the medieval world and generated holy crusades, duels to death, presided over by priests in the interest of defending personal honour, the conventions of war and I suspect even in the principles of Jihad and in the passages Zeusser quotes from the Baghavad Gita. Dave should have a little lie down and think things through a bit more and see what Jesus said on the subject.