Ross said:
Yes, Craig, it is terribly sad to witness the "depths" of dishonesty in which you are now prepared to go in order to exact your revenge on Dave in particular and us in general.
Only people as depraved as yourself are likely to believe you, however, as your mad raves become obvious to most sane people.
Seeing as you chose to go down the same path as Malcolm, you are receiving the same evil spirit.
You have given yourself a spiritual lobotomy by rejecting the voice of your conscience in favor of the voices from the depths of hell.

Are you really "terribly sad" Ross? Somehow I do not think so. If you were, you would engage in conversation instead of firing silly accusations. Publicly broadcasting, and allowing no right of reply, that a person has given themselves a "spiritual lobotomy" by listening to "voices from the depths of hell" and therefore has an "evil spirit" is hardly a way to win friends and influence people, don't you think?

Maybe you can explain how whipping that Kenyan volunteer is compatable with Quaker beliefs and practices. It is a simple question and we are all waiting with baited breath for the answer. Dave has not answered as yet. I think he knows full well it is not compatable, hence his continued refusal to answer. But, if you can answer how it is compatable, the Quakers might agree with you and retract their expulsion of your leader. You are a full time evangelist after all and therefore you should be ready in season and out of season to answer such questions. While you are at it you can tell us all how it lines up with Australian values and laws.

Oh my God, Apostate!! Tell me it's NOT true....! (Gasp!) No surely not!!!

You are thoughtlessly going down the same dangerous path as I??? (....in wilfull preference to being led up the garden path by David....)

Soon no doubt to be full of the same spirit as I (....Loxarel Reserva 2001 as of last night.....it's the only way I can "stomach" skim reading through the content of Davids’ vile mind on the JC site)

....those voices from the "depths of Hell"....God now that Ross mentions it, yes there they are and…. why!..... the wine glass on the Ouji Board!!...(which I always consult before posting on the RR forum)…...has gone absolutely berserk!!….(Could it be you, yet again, Zuul )

God, just let me write down the dark Satanic secrets that are being spelled out here!


Witch 1: Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd

Witch 2: Thrice and once the hedge-pig whin'd

Witch 3: …and Ross cries: 'Tis time, 'tis time.



Witch 1: Round about the cauldron go;

Among the poison'd entrails throw.

Souls, that Davids baleful care

O'er days and nights hast gutted bare

His hateful venom sleeping got,

Foiled the lives of a charming lot.



All: Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and cauldron bubble.



Witch 2: Fillet of a fenny snake,

In the cauldron boil and bake;

Ideals of youth, and toe of frog,

Hopes and dreams, and tongue of dog,

Childrens’ faith, and blind-worm's sting,

The love of folk, and howlet's wing,

Melt them down and brew but trouble,

Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.


All: Double, double toil and trouble;
Souls David touched, now nought but stubble
Minds that once loved, now blank and troubled
Lives destroyed, while waiting brimstone bubbles

By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2008 08:14PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

Dave saying nothing to stop his daughter putting herself in harms way [welikejesus.com]

Christine said:
I think I can speak for Robin and myself. We both want to stay, as we feel that is what God wants us to do at this time, which means that we are saying we are prepared to die. That is a choice we both made individually. We've never had someone in the community die before. God's been good to us in that way. But if someone does die, I suspect the anti-cult people will try to make some scandal of it. So I hope it's clear to people, that the community did not pressure any of us to come to Kenya, or to stay on when things got tough. It was our decision to return to Kenya for the conference and our decision to stay on.


Dave, if Robin and Christine are harmed it will be as a result of your influence in their lives. You should be over there instead of them putting YOURSELF in harms way, and not leaving it to your daughter who is obviously attempting to practice your perverted teachings. Seeing that she grew up in a cult, and never left ... under a demanding father ... her claims that she is doing this because of some power of "choice" she is exercising fall on deaf ears.


Roland responding:
Its fairly serious about Robin being threatened by those two well dressed chaps in Kakamega. I had a dream nearly a week ago that pointed towards us being prepared for death. I entered a large room which had many people who were lying down. They all had woollen blankets over them and as I entered I took one woollen blanket and covered myself, lying down. I heard the words, 'Pray'. Before entering the room, I could see in the distance hundreds of machete wielding people coming our way. I had no fear and I was accepting that we were probably going to die. There were no real thoughts of trying to escape, but just accepting fate and that something larger would come out of all of this.

Well, Christine and Robin, I hope that you don't die and it would be nice to see you again, maybe not yet, but later.

I would be interested to know what the "something larger" is Roland. Do you think that if you die that somehow the world will stop and listen to the teachings of the Jesus Christians? Do you think that God will be pleased that some Jesus Christians died because of a misunderstanding regarding their involvement in some countries election?



Ross offering up some wishy washy thoughts against them staying on

Rob and Chris, it sure is a serious decision you have made to stay on there.
It sounds as though people in Kakamega seriously believe that you were somehow involved in vote buying for Kibaki.
In which case you are going to get killed for a complete falsehood.

But, if you are certain God wants you to stay there come what may, all I can do is pray.


You can do more than pray Ross. You can ask Dave to offer to take their place, especially as you think they could be killed because of a misunderstanding. Come on Dave be apostolic and step up to the plate and protect your daughter. She must have convinced you by now that she will follow through with it. Now, be the "leader" and go first.

The "peace" which surpasses all understanding has descended upon AlAnthony after reading Dave's teachings

With greater understanding of Revelation I feel an air of peace that has come over me now. These pieces of scum that call themselves followers of Christ will pay big time. God will spew them out of his mouth and vengeance will be poured upon the earth. [welikejesus.com]

It seems his "peace" comes from a belief that those who disagree will get theirs "big time".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2008 11:22AM by apostate.

Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
Oh my God, Apostate!! Tell me it's NOT true....! (Gasp!) No surely not!!!

You are thoughtlessly going down the same dangerous path as I??? (....in wilfull preference to being led up the garden path by David....)

You can be the false prophet and I can be the anti-Christ, or I can be the false prophet and you can be the anti-christ. We can toss a coin to decide or do it on a rostered basis. What do you think?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2008 11:31AM by apostate.

Simon writes: [welikejesus.com]
"What do people think about the idea of pacifisim as it relates to violence used by words?"


It seems Dave is happy to equate literal violence with the war of words he indulges in, as he replies with military references from the Bible and describes "the truth" as his "weapon" for "pulling down strongholds".


Dave replies:
"The New Testament says that the weapons we use to build the kingdom of heaven are not "carnal", and yet they are mighty, "to the pulling down of strongholds". In Ephesians, Paul goes into detail describing the Christians' "armour" (e.g. the breastplate of righeousness and the helmet of salvation). And then he comes to "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God". Our weapon is the truth, sometimes administered softly and sometimes shouted, but the truth, nevertheless."


And continues to try and "pull down" the Quakers whose very avoidance of conflict and cautious withdrawal is portrayed by Dave as something "quite hateful".


"This does seem to explain some of the friction that arises between ourselves and some Quakers. I am not saying that we/I always speak our words in love; but I am certain that there is a general feeling amongst Friends that ANY form of confrontation is to be avoided, and that seems to be what has led to so much gossip in the Society. Sadly, a high percentage of the gossip seems to be quite hateful too, though, no doubt, Friends would TRY to preface it with an introduction about just wanting to warn people, or something soothing like that."


Despite admitting to failing to speak his words in love, which in the polarised rhetoric he employs must equate to "hate", Dave seems to think that an injustice has been inflicted upon him by those who withdraw and deny him his confrontation and so he tries to construct the rules whereby he can continue challenging them with his words.


"Of course, if we could sit down and have a LOT of discussion, where we were each able to hear the other side, no doubt we would get some good tips on how to be more tactful in things that we say, and they would get some good tips about how hurtful and spiritually violent gossip can be. Both sides would benefit from the constructive nature of dialogue which is controlled by some careful rules of engagement, and overseen by a skilled facilitator."


So have you got that Simon? Dave is saying when he wields his "weapon", whether it be administered with strategic softness or authoritarian force, and even when he knows he's lost the love, that is true pacifism in action... ??? But when the people from an organisation that has a world wide reputation for non violence quietly withdraw from such behaviour, they are "very hateful", "hurtful" and "spiritually violent"!


Just another glimpse into the upside down world of Dave's doublespeak.


Cherry writes:
"I suspect a pacificist who hasn't had his/her theories tested may not be a pacificist at all. It is what we do under threat that shows whether or not we have internalised our principles."


Despite Dave's rhetoric on pacifism and against gossip and authoritarian rule, we HAVE seen what Dave will do when he imagines he is under threat. Just about anything!


Joe related the discussion on pacifism with the attack on Reinhard and chastised himself for being a coward in not resisting his father's action. Cherry wrote:
" This world is a training ground. Next time, maybe you will be a pacifist out of concern for someone else, as Reinhard was for you. You'll have some experience behind you to draw from and will be stronger for it."


Since Cherry is attributing a moral obligation on Joe to oppose his family's physical aggression and since this discussion is relating physical violence with the harm that words and rejection can bring, the question for Cherry to consider is why she failed to oppose her husbands unprincipled behaviour in the closed meetings that not only gossiped about, but conspired to quietly remove her children from the community. When it came to exercising her voice in defending what is right, did she oppose the fact that she was marched out of the room when her son asked if she supported his father's actions? Does she oppose the fact that her husband stopped her from sending birthday or Christmas greetings to her grandchildren and still forbids her from contacting them at all unless he is present. If Joe is expected to oppose his family to do what is right, are you, Cherry prepared to oppose Dave, to do what you feel is right by your family? The tests only make you stronger if you resolve to overcome past failures.

Dave wrote: [welikejesus.com]
"Jesus made some excellent observations about systemites. He said that they make heroes of past spiritual leaders ("prophets") while stoning the present ones. I think that is what is happening at the moment amongst Friends. It doesn't mean that there is never any truth in their criticisms of us, nor does it mean that there are no sincere people who get caught up in the lynch mob.

There are people even now amongst Friends who can see that the reaction against us is irrational, but as one Friend whom we once regarded as a very dear friend (in the true sense) said to us, he had to weigh up his options, and he needs an organisation where he can find fellowship and support more than he needs us, and so he asked us not to write to him anymore. It is, of course, this same kind of "expediency" that killed Jesus. And Jesus said that if we try to walk in his footsteps the same things will happen to us."

Once again, if someone in the JC's could get some perspective to see how the very words Dave uses to try and embarrass and challenge the Quakers could be applied to his treatment of critics who pass through his "system", they may realise a whole lot more grace and humility is required.

Dave is right, sincere people can get caught up in the lynch mob and succumb to peer pressure. Among those JC's who were pressured to write hateful letters to Boyd and Sheri telling them to cease sending birthday greetings and family newsletters to the community, was one person who when he was expelled regretted his involvement in that task and wrote to apologise to them, admitting he was just doing what he was asked to do with no real conviction that they had done anything wrong. How many others are doing the same now?

Many JC's hang on for years, suppressing and excusing things they wouldn't normally agree with because it is easier to comply, and can't see an alternative to the system they are in.


Tofferer (a relatively new poster on the JC forum) replies:
"I frequently find some truths are easier to accept than others. Also, I find that more lies occur when people forget the truth. Organizations are especially guilty of this. Sometime organized churches are even more guilty (and this coming from a "churchie"). When dealing with an organization, especially a church, it is best to try to understand what they know of the truth. Sadly, many modern churches have lost sight of the truth in favor of social programs or pet philosophies and agendas. I've taken the time to carefully study much of what the Jesus Christians believe and I certainly can not find anything disagreeable. In like manner, based upon what I have read regarding "Craig's" posts, I can not find anything to support his accusations. As for Dave's leadership of the JC's, he seems to have been there from the beginning and as such, it is only fitting that he is the leader of this group. From what I can see, he is doing an excellent job. Bravo Zulu"

What Tofferer has read, appears to be Dave's bullshit story about me trying to take over leadership of the community, which, coming from a self professed "churchie" would lead me to believe he needs an organisation where he can find fellowship and support more than he needs to know the truth.

Half of an entire movement comprising of idealistic individuals who had given so much to the idea of an invisible Kingdom of Heaven, are not going to walk away because someone else puts up his hand and says they are willing to be the leader, which is Dave's fallacious argument. These people left when Dave's gossip, back room dealing, lies and treachery came to light and they could no longer support him in it. The trouble is that apart from Cherry, Roland and Sue, no remaining JC witnessed the final Expulsion, (although many participated in the closed meetings that went for days to shore up support for scapegoating Dave's son) and so as the years go by it is easier and easier for new people to enter the organisation believing the revisionist history that Dave presents, on the assumption that everyone would not support a complete lie. But that is what it is, Tofferer, and any time you want to open your mind to get the unedited side to Dave's fiction, PM me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2008 02:26PM by apostate.

David,

You have misrepresented me in your analysis of my postings, but I will refrain from going over that "line by line" for the moment, because, right now;

I (and some Quakers, and all the posters on this forum) are still waiting for your response to all the repeated postings on this forum regarding your whipping of the Kenyan boy, and request an explaination of how this is in line with Quaker beliefs and practices.

"To continue with the thread of how offensive and racist it was for Dave to whip that Kenyan volunteer, I have to make mention of the human rights conventions it breeches.

Whipping breeches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984). SOURCE: [www.stop-stoning.org] "

[forum.culteducation.com]

"Dave the "Quaker" said:

"Our decision to return to the whip as a form of punishment is actually based on a desire to shorten the period of punishment at the same time that we sharpen the message about punishment. Whips have been used in just about every culture, as a form of punishment, because they inflict a lot of pain without causing much more than superficial and temporary injury to the body.

We have already experimented in a small way with an offender in Kenya, where it is customary for police to routinely flog suspects during interrogations, and where a prison sentence usually includes 25 lashes a day for the first three days of imprisonment. A young man had stolen some things from us and sold them to buy home brewed wine. We offered him the option of receiving five lashes of the whip (and signing a paper to the effect that he had done so willingly, that it was because he had in fact stolen from us, and that he was sorry for his behaviour). He gladly accepting the flogging, which was carried out in the presence of local village representatives.

While it may be "customary" for the police in Kenya to routinely flog suspects, it is hardly the Quaker way to resolve problems. The man obviously has some problems with alcohol dependency, if he feels a need to steal from and hock your personal property. (even though you tell people to consider nothing your own) Do you really think such a dependency can be removed by using a whip? In the West people with alcohol problems are provided with guidance and understanding and taught how to cope with life using safe techniques. Using a whip would only serve to reinforce any sense of shame he inevitably experiences by stealing your personal possessions. It seems a bit odd that you ask him to say he is sorry before whipping him. Would the number of lashes have increased if he did not say sorry? Turning the other cheek in this instance would have been more in line with Quaker ideology, don't you think?"

[forum.culteducation.com]

Apostate says (and I totally share this viewpoint):

'Personally I find the whipping of the Kenyan volunteer to be the most offensive of their actions to this point. To me it represents the racism and arrogance that sits at their core. The action of whipping that Kenyan volunteer is in principle similar to the tale told by Joseph Conrad in his "Heart of Darkness",(published in 1902) and how Marlow finds a man dishing out to the natives in "the horror, the horror" to try to maintain control. Not that David is anywhere near that level... but something about the principle involved which made me think of that book."

He goes on to say:

"The whipping of the volunteer in Kenya is the most serious and least-known least-publicised human criminal action of the Jesus Christians which flies in the face of not only Quaker values, but of "Decent Australian Values" - i.e. "It's Un-Australian"!!!!!! It is the height of arrogance and imagined racial superiority for Dave to order the whipping of that Kenyan and clearly highlights the power imbalance which exists between those inside and those outside his group. He cites the example of a corrupt police force as justification for him doing it when he really should have set a shining example of an alternative way to treat a person suffering from an alcohol dependency, i.e. forgiveness and understanding. Here we have a poor Kenyan who sees and opportunity to work with some rich foreigners, who has at times turned to alcohol to deal with some of life's problems in the impoverished environment in which he lives. Overcome by the urge to drink he steals something from the "Quaker" foreigners only to find himself suddenly facing them in a home grown court case with wierd catch 22 scenarios being offered to him. He has to take a whipping or allow someone he has grown close to take the whipping on his behalf. What to do he must have said to himself. He has had whipping before from the police and knows that he can take it. He looks at his new white freind and thinks to himself it is not right that he gets whipped as that would be shameful to HIM and me. I will take the whipping, as it is (he thinks to himself) "what I deserve". (a questionable thought). He is then asked to sign a peice of paper saying he was taking the whipping "willingly" and has to say "sorry".

Yes, the whipping of the Kenyan volunteer was a racist act by a man who believes he was racially superior to the one he was whipping. It flies in the face of the multi-cultural values of social justice in Australia, America, Great Britain, in fact any country which has outlawed whipping people for crimes. "

[forum.culteducation.com]


Surely, even if you can not face up to repudiating your statement about this, you could at least remove your justification of it from your web site? It is totally offensive (and possibly criminal) on every level imaginable!

Dave speculating on what type of punishment he can mete out to those who have sinned [cust.idl.net.au]

Pain seems to be the most humane and speedy form of human punishment. We could whip them strongly, without doing any damage to their teeth, brain, or spine. And it would all be over in just a few minutes. Also, this is a punishment which we ourselves could take without serious disruption to other important tasks that we are involved in at the moment. We would have nothing more than a few scars to show for it after a few days of healing.

Nope still doesn't seem compatible with Quaker beliefs and practices. Try again Dave. I remain unconvinced.

Both the morality behind, and the effectiveness of Corporal Punishment has been questioned for approximately 150 years...

"Merely inflicting pain on miscreants was seen as inefficient, influencing the subject merely for a short period of time and effecting no permanent change in their behaviour. Some believed that the purpose of punishment should be reformation, not retribution. This is perhaps best expressed in Jeremy Bentham's idea of a panoptic prison, in which prisoners were controlled and surveyed at all times, perceived to be advantageous in that this system reduced the need of measures such as corporal punishment.." (Source -Wikipedia)

David of course, is light years, behind the debate....but after all, he does live unchallenged in a little artificially created world of universe of Moral Relativism, where his merest whimsy, rules as doctrine....where we all know it's NOT simple retribution because David has told us that it's not and if we are so presumptuous as to then question that assertion, we are merely proving our own "unworthiness" before him, as embittered critics aren't we.....(and anyone who might question that within the JesusChristians, has of course already been removed......)

If we are to take his (current) justification of cultural relativism at face value, that would imply that some of the Christian values he claims to champion, would become so poorly defined as to be illusory.....(then again, we have read from him that Christ doesn't have to be always be taken literally (only David himself has to be always taken literally!!)...so perhaps this is "consistent" logic on his part (..."I am the annointed Apostle destined by divine right to magnanimously provide the interpretation of any scriptural injunction that I may arbitrarily choose to either invoke or alternately ignore"...)

Hence, David could have cut off the hand of the Kenyan volunteer if in Saudi Arabia, or sold his wife and children to redeem the debt, if in other countries in Africa or rural India.....it's all perfectly acceptable and logically sound in the shifting standards of Davids' gospel....

Thus...as there are no "truths" other than what David ordains to be "true" on the spur of any particular moment, there is moral "consistency" here to be seen in David's defence of his actions....the logic, that is consistent with someone dangerously self-demented with their own self-importance......