Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Date: April 23, 2008 11:45PM

Dear Talamasca,

I write now at some distance (in both time and location) from the JesusChristians, (several others who post here don't!) however, I think that David would be unlikely to engage in a "mass suicide" at the moment. The Apostle of God is too "important" to simply throw himself away so cheaply and he needs to keep as many of the few disciples that he currently has, alive.

That said, you may remember that Roland came down with Typhus (?) after the publicity seeking effort off eating of a table lowered into an open sewer in India....this nature of thing would be more my own personal concern over the risks David McKay, poses to others of the "media stunts" goes badly awry and someone is seriously hurt (...well okay, you've donated a kidney now, what about your liver and your bone marrow....some skin grafts perhaps??).

"Where your treasure, there will your heart be also"......David's "treasure" is whatever attention he can draw to himself....and the lure of such "treasure" could prompt him to take some "shortcuts".....shortcuts that might accentuate the risks, the David-Fearing followers, face.....

I've already made mention of several of Davids Prophecies that have failed to come to pass (by scriptural standards thus completely refuting his claims to any nature of "spiritual authority")....the pamphlets we handed out in the early 80's stating that America would be destroyed by Russia in a surprise nuclear attack within a few years....the rogue satellite carrying germ warfare solutions that would kill billions of lives when it came crashing to earth....

However the "star-ship" was spoken and written of in far less detail than in (what I believe they were in) the teachings of the Heavens cult....References to it may possibly still be found in among his last day teachings, (still available on the JC site when last I looked) where following the return of Christ, those who died in the faith are raised from the dead, and rise through the air to meet the few faithful souls who have survived the Tribulation, on board a massive "space-ship" that overlooks the earth, where they will celebrate for several months.....the hosts of Heaven existing all along, in another dimension in some nature of parallel universe to the world of sense perception......David is "guessing" here....(and belatedly trying to cast himself with the mystic of Stephen Hawking!)....however as long as he keeps a perspective on himself that he's really only "guessing" would seem to me to be no worse than any other "guesses", about how it will all ultimately transpire in the end......

(Here I admit that the banal prescriptive grammar he endeavours to employ as "evidence" of faithfulness before God in the JC newsletter leading the preceding page, is of course, a worrying indication that he has absolutely NO objective perspective on himself....and the woeful attempt at self-deprecatory humour, with the incredulous tale that he would ever deign to submit himself to Cherry seriously challenging him through "proof-reading" what he wrote, being almost as bad!!)

I think Barbiedoll is right in what she observed about the "wedding rings" Zeusor (i.e. she DIDN'T "observe" them among the JCs she met)...What about the Shawls covering the heads of some of the JC women folk not too long ago, or the "GO" T-Shirts of all those years ago in Sydney.....they are all just passing fads that David happily condescends to briefly as "gimmicks" to remind the "disciples" of the need to stay committed in their faiths...eventually David tires of them, and word is "passed down", that such observances are now "passe"...

The neccessity of obediance to the whims of David is the point that is being made, not the actual temporary practises of "wedding rings" or "shawls" or "distinctive clothing"....hence the wedding rings have probably just "come and gone" like so many other gimmicks before them.....

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2008 11:52PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: April 24, 2008 03:19AM

"Some of the JCs have taken to wearing rings to signify that they are married to Jesus."

Zeuszor, where did you hear this? I did not see anyone wearing rings except the married people, maybe i just didnt notice. I do think that is odd if they are doing that.

It's on page 19 of this thread.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Date: April 24, 2008 10:38PM

On Wednesday April 16th, David wrote:

Ash is still in the group. Grace is still in the group. Ross is still in the group. What IS true is that Martin is working more or less independently now, but even he is still living by faith and distributing our literature full time. So you may have to cancel the dance!

Perhaps we'll have to briefly postpone those particular celebrations,....but it does appear as though we can all afford to break into raucously energetic dance, over the escape of Vicki, and the future lives that have now been won for her precious children.....

(...but don't just sit and sulk in the doldrums about it all, will you David, that desperate for solace that you've had to turn to deranged mind of AlAntony and kin, for comfort....I've gone and penned some verses for you, just so you'll be able to at least sing along, in time with Carlton and I....)


It's not unusual to be shunned by every one
It's not unusual to spoil the fun of anyone
but when I see you moving out with anyone
It's not unusual to see me cry,
oh I wanna' die

It's not unusual to go out of your mind
but when I see you out of my cult, it's such a crime
if you should ever want to real love from anyone,
It's not unusual it happens every day no matter what you say
you find it happens all the time

God will never do what you tell him to
why can't this crazy world be mine

It's not unusual, when I'm mad with anyone
It's not unusual, when I'm sad about anyone

but if I ever find that you've left at anytime
it's not unusual to find that I never had God's love for you

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: April 25, 2008 02:25PM

I wanted to share with you a letter that was written to the community on Friday, 22 February, 2008 1:26:25 Am, it was sent by Dave, i think it makes for a very intersting read, what do you think?.......

".....So often when members leave the community, it seems to come across that it was a fun club to belong to for a while, but now they want to look around and see if there is something that would be more fun, easier, or whatever. Obviously, some of that can just be explained by saying that they "backslid". But I wonder....

It's so easy to talk the talk about living by faith, and to at least appear to be walking the walk just by being a part of this community. But I think the vital ingredient that only God can see is whether or not you are growing in personal accountability to him.

Now I want to go from the sublime to something that may SEEM ridiculous to some of you.

As most of you know by now, I have been trying for the past 25 years to teach members of the JCs that when we talk about "a lot" of something, it is two words and not one word. After 25 years, I can say that I have achieved relative success. But the only thing that makes such a point seem ridiculous is just that it HAS taken so long to change the most tiny little insignificant grammatical error (in a language that must have a hundred thousand such rules to be remembered in order to communicate well). The second thing (which I have probably only been working hard on for about ten years now, is to get people to know when to say "I" and when to say "me" ("we" or "us", etc.) I have said it and said it and said it, that there is a very simple rule that will tell you the right word to use each time you start to say it (without having to check a book or ask anyone else), if only you will use that rule, and yet I have to report, that after ten years of preaching this, we are lucky if people get it right even fifty percent of the time (which would be roughly the success rate if you just flipped a coin each time it came up in conversation).

The reason I DON'T think this is ridiculous, is that the Bible says if we cannot be faithful in little things, how can we be faithful in big things. If our general attitude with regard to correct grammar is that we cannot even be bothered with THINKING about what is the correct word to use on one very specific and very common mistake, then what reason is there to believe that we are going to get serious about changing anything else in our lives?

Like Glenn says on the forum, "That's the way I talk." In other words, take it or leave it, I'm not going to change. What is the real spirit behind such stubbornness? Isn't it pride? And is it ridiculous of me to express some concern about such pride? The idea with getting people to write "a lot" as two words was just to get them to make the very first step in changing thousands of things about themselves. But if it took 25 years to do that, then obviously we never ARE going to get to a place where we just accept valid criticisms as quickly as they are given.

Now, while I am in a grumpy mood, I want to talk about something else that I have discussed at length quite a number of times, and that is the matter of counsel. I'm not saying that everyone is having problems with this one, but it does seem to be more than just one or two people. We get those people who will arbitrarily make some huge decisions which could have worldwide long-standing effects on all of us, and they do it with hardly even a THOUGHT about what others might think about it, and then if I get upset about it, they start raising their hands and asking me if they can go to the toilet (or some similarly trivial decision that doesn't really need my input). My feeling is that this over-reaction is almost a form of rebellion... well, actually, I guess that I see the unwillingness to seek counsel in the first place as a form of rebellion too. It should be something that just happens naturally most of the time (and only becomes a problem in those little borderline issues where it's not clear whether you should seek counsel or not).

I want to especially say this with regard to posting on various forums around the world. You don't have to pass everything by me, but I think it would be good if people sense that they are saying something fairly critical of someone else, or something which may be questionable, if they could find the JC closest to them and ask for a second opinion (at least). Often I think that people KNOW they are just letting off steam or that they are getting into an area where they are not really sure of what to say, and that is why they DON'T want a second opinion. (I know, because my flesh really reacts against Cherry always telling me to tone it down when I'm writing something that is expressing my anger about something. Ha, she hasn't read this letter yet, so I may have to rewrite it if she has the time to check it for me when I finish!) But really, when you get counsel on something it is a great form of protection for yourself. If someone complains later, you can say, "Well, I shared it around with my team here, and they all approved it." See, you have others to share the blame with, and it's not half so hard to take then!

I won't go into the specifics, but there have been things that people have said on forums lately that have been a little embarrassing, and that do not seem to represent our position, similar to the statement about us not believing in birthdays. When that happens, people like Craig just love to cause division by putting it onto me or the rest of us in general, and forcing us to disagree with one another publicly. We have seen that happening with stupid things that Brian and his ilk have to say on their site... we are able to get them fighting one another over it. But please, don't let it happen to us.

Well, enough ranting from me. Time for Cherry to proof read for me now.

Love, Dave"

Three times in a row just now I've read this thing and for the life of me, still, I just don't get it. It's two pages or so of BS communicating nothing at all. Pure jibber-jabber. What the hell is DM trying to say? Is there a point here somewhere? This is one of the most rambling texts I've ever read. Seriously, I can't make sense of it and am baffled. Did he really send this out? Can somebody help me understand please? WTF?

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2008 02:32PM by zeuszor.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: barbiedoll ()
Date: April 25, 2008 04:11PM

Zeuszor, Dave did write this and he wrote it to the all the community when he was feeling annoyed that people were not doing as he says.

The reason i shared this is because i wanted to show the way in which Dave tells his followers how to live. He explains the things that piss him off and ask people to change so he is happy. I think it is so funny to be honest with you he does just ramble on and on about nothing and that is what he does.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: Blackhat ()
Date: April 25, 2008 06:11PM

Simon, you rock!

So glad to see you taking on the fascist poster and his ilk! I can't understand why David tolerates them, unless it's because it's all he has to offer. And they can post whatever venom they like and David does nothing, no challenge, nothing. It makes me wonder if he likes to see their heinous postings and enjoys that nobody challenges????

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:02 am


What I can't understand is, why isn't David standing up for things like Simon does so admirably?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: Blackhat ()
Date: April 25, 2008 06:18PM

Wow! David is praising Simon in the same instant I am.

I wonder if it was a response to my posting, or synchronicity. Can someone who does the time thing work it out for us?


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Date: April 26, 2008 10:57AM

Dear Blackhat,

I HAVEN'T done the "time thing" but I'll wager (David of course can supply the "times" to disprove me...if he is able to!!) that David is only seeking to better "win" Simons' heart by circumventing any "rappoire" that may inadvertently develop between you and Simon, as a consequence of your comment ("us and "them" is fiction David deliberately foments).....David would have only duplictly "copied" your contribution in my opinion, for the sake of "appearance" and to in order to be able to forestall any diversion of attention away from himself as Simons' "true Christian friend" ....

Before touching the actual issues of the debate, it is of course patently obvious that David has nothing of any worth to say himself, and is well out of his intellectual depth here, hence he is has been reduced to claim for himself the role of "honest mediator"....the actual rights and wrongs of what is being discussed of course being ultimately meaningless to him AS LONG AS, readers come away from the thread thinking that "well Glen made some points and Simon had some good things to say...but what a nasty argument it was all becoming...luckily David was able to "intervene" and make some sense of it all....." David will of course be quite happy with that outcome.....

The "debate" is a little similar to the earlier Creationist/Evolutionist argument.....there are points to be made on both sides, but clueless David needs to end the debate (claiming it "degenerated" into something below him and the JC site), as it draws attention to personalities beyond his, in an area where his own mediocrity becomes all too apparent.....taking other peoples ideas and claiming for your own is challenging enough of an effort for David.

I don't know your take on the issues Blackhat....While I appreciate Simons contribution (...someone who HASN'T chosen to commit moral and spiritual "suicide" by signing up with the JC's??? I'd assumed that to be a fait accompli!!) I would probably fall more in favour of Glenns views here.....Glenn here (IMO) falling into the trap of restricting himself to debating the issues in the situations and terms that Simon couches them in....I'd be interested to hear how Simon imagined that the Serbian rape camps, might have otherwise come to an end....instead of the approval (by the US) of the supply of artillery to the Croation and Bosnian Forces)....."Christian" demonstrators ruefully wringing their hands outside of the Serbian embassys in the capitals of Europe, might otherwise have won the day??

In South Korea, were there to be no Armed Forces, the generals of North Korea, would attack without a second thought (I'd be in a concentration camp, if not simply executed outright, my wife would probably be forced into prostitution and my "mixed-blood" daughter killed for her organs)....they only "negotiate" these days, as they can no longer afford a modern army with which to threaten the South...

Simon comfortably lives in Britain where he is able to afford to take the rights of his own personal security for granted.....His "morality" to me would seem to be a luxury of his circumstances.....

Having met (and lived UNDER) David McKay and now residing in what would be a "prime target" for North Korean forces (the major port for the Capital)'s earlier idealism modifies ever so slightly.....

What do you think?

(As this will not "nice" in the views of some, I realise that this should be on the FERAL thread......I may address it in more detail there later)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: barbiedoll ()
Date: April 26, 2008 10:56PM

Hey Blackhat, you need to empty your inbox, can get any messages through x

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Date: April 27, 2008 12:22AM

Dear Blackhat,

I've had a little further time to look through the postings that you have provided a link too....I presume Glenn is the "fascist poster" you refer to....I'd still say that there are several nuances of the debate that have escaped Simon (it's a little difficult to see the positive in Simon, when someone like David sees fit to speak in his support (to my mind then, simply weighing up for himself that Simon is a more likely "potential" member than Glenn, hence the threats to "moderate" Glenn out of the thread being intended to all the better to endear himself to Simon....theres another soul that can be swindled out its very life here, THAT'S the issue for David, not the matter of "justified force"), however I will try...)

We may have to disagree on the issues here. You may be aware that Pinker (The Blank Slate) wrote of the fundamental divisions that separate those who choose to evaluate the fundamental "nature of man" divergently...I am one who (with Hobbes for example) would believe in the inherent wickedness in the human species, hence "laws" are enacted to restrain the excesses of the "brute".....some others though take a far more optimistic outlook on the nature of people...the assumptions here will though affects the extent to which we would consider something to be "reasonable" or not.....

Any occasions of "Justified Force" are ridiculed by Simon with reference to the emotive images (that both sides of the debate could draw upon!) of the sufferings that people have fallen prey to, in the course of the Iraqi conflict. (I will leave comment on that particular issue to FERAL Thread). There are certainly horrendous consequences to war. I would still contend though that Serbian rape camps no longer exist primarily because sufficient Serbians died and enough territory was lost, that their access to sources of potential victims was denied (and partly due to the almost complete collapse of the administrative architecture of the regime...not because the Serbian political leaders and generals were ever somehow "awakened" to the damage they were causing.....Would you then say that any peace-keeping activities on the part of the United Nations (say East Timor or potentially in Sudan?) were "fascist" (..potentially they involve the same horrific "collateral damage" to civilians that the forces in Iraq have been pilloried for).

Sir Robert Peels introduction of a police force in the 1800's? Unchristian trammelling of the rights of the common people? How would you justify the (possibly deadly) force that the police employ and then condemn the force that the military might employ in any peace-keeping duties? ......(The balance of peace-keeping and war-making that most armies do, being decidedly tilted towards the latter, but that observation only commends reconfiguring that does not refute the substantive legal or moral possibility of "justified force"...)

Rick Ross provides this forum for the benefit of those who have survived cults and hence I will avoid going into excessive detail about the matter here. Your opinions on this matter are as valid as mine. It is certainly encouraging to see Simon thinking and independently defending his perspectives. They are not my perspectives, but those opinions indicate that he still lives in an orbit external to the universe of David McKay. In addition to the actual content of what he says, my heart though warms to Glenn, who is ALSO indicating independence of thought on the JC forum (and to my biased mind, he is doing so at far greater "cost" to himself, than Simon!)

Options: ReplyQuote

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