I see that Dave has made many comments about things on the JC web site since I wrote the above posting. But he is avoiding the issues raised by all the postings here and on his own forum regarding his victimization of an innocent man.

Maybe he needs to have these matters brought to his attention on his own forum, in order for him to attend to them.

Jezabel, anyone?

Doublespeak Dave defends submission to religious fathers

I see that Tofferer has made a return to the JC forum, explaining his two issues of theological difference with the JC's. He adds;

"Also, be certain to carefully review the Augsburg Confession. It, along with the 95 Theses are what allow us the freedom to be Christians without being in submission to a "pope" or "bishop"." [welikejesus.com]

Dave replies;

"This is the kind of divisiveness that seems to invariably flow from theological nit-picking."

If Dave thinks Martin Luther's 99 thesis was just theological nitpicking, perhaps he should renounce the Quakers and return to the Roman Catholic church, which he joined along with half of the community back in 1985.

"To my knowledge, the Catholic Church DOES believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and it DOES believe in the Trinity. ...So what you are saying does not make a lot of sense, even though it does seem to be consistent with the reasoning behind so much theological training (i.e. an attempt to cut away everyone except our own select little circle of good guys)."

It would seem that Dave is attempting to cut Tofferer away from his "select little circle" by nit picking with the fact he said he only has TWO differences with JC theology, and thinking this prevents him from having other issues of difference with Catholicism. When Tofferer referenced the Reformation and the issue involving human authorities playing the role of mediator between God and the individual, he no doubt thought he was appealing to Dave on an issue where they shared common ground, particularly since Dave teaches obedience to the commands of Jesus which include; "None of you should be called a teacher, because you are all brothers and have only one teacher. And call no man your father because you have only one Father in heaven. Nor should you be called the leader. The Messiah is your only leader." Matthew 23:8-10


"And what is so different between being in submission to a "bishop" as opposed to being in submission to a "pastor"? (I have heard that both words just mean "shepherd".)"

Notice how Dave dodged "Pope" which quite literally means "Father"? The fact is Jesus targets the role (CEV version) and title (TEV version) of "leader" and "teacher" in the same fashion, but Dave has nit picked on the "father" issue such that people are condemned for using secular terms like "Mr" or "sir" and calling their biological parent "father". Dave has spent his whole life challenging religious authorities, but now that he perceives that someone might be challenging HIS authority he is now nit picking on the etymology of a title to DEFEND a hierarchical system of authority, which given the context of Matthew 23, is exactly what Jesus was opposing with that passage.


"These seem to be further evidence in support of my own belief that all of this theological anger has only divided believers, rather than leading us to the unifying issues that were emphasised by Jesus."

It would seem that Dave is using "love and unity" as a one-liner intended to cut Tofferer away for daring to have an issue with him, when Dave recklessly challenges and accuses at will, on the assumption that he is justified in believing the worst of everyone until they are able to prove him wrong. Lets see Dave put his sermon on emphasising the "unifying issues" into practice by removing all his divisive comments from his forum and taking steps to reverse the contention and strife that has practically become his defining characteristic.

Kim writes: [welikejesus.com]

"I think the confusion about whether something is right or wrong is that people (and I have noticed that Australians are especially so in this respect) equate the laws of man with the laws of God. Do you think God wants nations to spy on other nations so that they can have a strategic economic advantage over them?"

Do you think the laws of God allow Dave to spy on others so that he can have a strategic advantage over them?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the ongoing Quaker situation. To be fair, poor old David McKay strikes me as less evil and more comedic with his latest hilarious (but decidedly un-Christian) rantings about this and David Lowe:

We secretly planted ourselves outside the seminar, we noted down the number plates, we saw a taxi arrive, we sneaked into the grounds, we were spotted and ejected, we sneaked back in, we saw someone sitting in the front row, we were spotted and ejected again, etc.

Don't take my word for it. For those who haven't seen it, check out the farcical rant at 4:36pm on May 2:

[welikejesus.com]

Despite the thousands of words McKay and his acolytes have written about this, the entire sorry situation can be summed up in one simple sentence:

The Australian Quakers believe they've been infiltrated by a nasty little cult that preys on vulnerable young people, and they want them out.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Some Jesus Christian members are now suddenly posting for the first time on the "Publishing the Truth" thread on the JC website. (Call in the "Rent-a-Crowd"?)

[welikejesus.com]

They are expressing concern that the letter from the Quakers might mean they cannot attend meetings because of their association with Jesus Christians. I doubt this is the case. I am quite sure that the main thrust of the Quaker issue is about David McKay himself, and his personal postings on the JC website containing attacks on particular Quakers, (David Lowe in particular) and the way he has positioned himself within his local meeting. I really don't think the problem lies with other individual Jesus Christians other than David Mckay, or Jesus Christians' own individual musings about Quaker philosophy on that forum. Unless, of course, they present as an orchestrated campaign managed by one individual!

David McKay began attending Quaker meetings because he read that they were somewhere you could say whatever you liked, and people would listen to you. And he thought "That's the place for me!": He said that himself!

That was his motivation for attending the local Devonshire Street meeting, according to him.

Everything that has happened since is because he wanted to be a Quaker for all the wrong reasons.

Now the Quakers have called him to task. Not with only a few days notice! This has been coming for a long time, and David has had plenty of time to think about it and to reconsider his vindictive and libellous postings about individual Quaker members. And now Dave wants to duck out of it all. He's off on a three month holiday, and can't attend to the matter. So the Quakers have a choice of whether to cast him off in his absence, and make him a martyr, or to allow him to continue on the internet for three months while maintaining Quaker membership. Assuming they can call him to task upon his return!

ALERT TO ALL WHO COME IN CONTACT WITH DAVID MCKAY. HE HAS ALREADY PUBLISHED THE BLUEPRINT, AND HERE IT IS!

Yes, David has already published the guidebook for what to do when this happens. It is on his web site, in an article about "The Id and the Honesty". Only a narcissist could fail to recognise what is really happening!

[www.jesus-teachings.com]

To quote Dave's guidebook on what to do in these situations:

"We can, for a short time claim not to understand what they are talking about. But feigning confusion is only a temporary diversion aimed at stalling for time. A more effective form of evasion is to physically remove yourself from the presence of the person who is confronting you with the truth about yourself.

You can politely say that you will "get back" to the person later, or excuse yourself to "go away and think about" what has been said, and then do your best to avoid the person or situation which threatens to confront you with the truth about yourself. If a polite escape does not work, you can simply turn and run."

Uhahaa.......

In the last 24 hours, several thousand more words (all of them decidedly un-Christian) about the Quakers have been posted on the Jesus Christians forum.

David McKay responded to the Quaker ultimatum by saying he was going away for 3 months. But he's still posting on a daily basis on his own forum, so the implication that he's out of touch seems to be yet another lie.

If the Ku Klux Klan said there were similarities between themselves and the Republican Party and if a few KKK members turned up at Republican Party meetings, there would doubtless be an outcry.

For a start, the KKK members would probably be lying and inventing similarities that simply weren't there.

But even if they were being uncharacteristically truthful, so what? The Republicans wouldn't want anything to do with the KKK. Even if there were a few similarities, the Republicans would rightly conclude that the KKK were a nasty little organization trying to gain undeserved respectability by implying some kind of linkage with a mainstream political party.

Sound familiar?

Thank you for the research and the latest links Talamasca.

You appear to be correct in that David McKay is progressively going insane through his David Lowe fixation. I can though understand why the PROJECTION (of Davids own guilt) is so-o-o tempting given the subconscious promptings that would in an encounter with someone of his own name...

....if we (but ever so slightly) paraphrase Davids recent postings;

It has been David Mckay's theory almost from his first post on the JesusChristian forum, that if you can destroy a person's reputation sufficiently, then you even become immune to charges of libel because, in his thinking, "You have not done any damage, because he had a bad reputation to begin with."

His own personal "authority" appears to be the God of David McKay these days, where control is exercised by the JesusChristians's ability to destroy someone's reputation, regardless of whether that person is ever given a chance to defend themselves and regardless of whether there is any substance to the damnation that is meted out to people who do not toe the line. I dared to question David McKay's conduct, and that has brought the full force of the JesusChristians's rage down on me and the rest of those who post on the Rick Ross forum .

David McKay, like so many gossips the word over, seems to think that he only has to say "It is said", and he is protected against a lawsuit for libel. But the truth is, David, that you would have to (in a court of law) produce your source. If you can't do that, then it becomes your own vicious, destructive lie, and you get all the credit (or all the blame) yourself......


....For the record, David McKay (at least in most instances) is, IMO, a damned liar, and should be kicked out of the Australian Society of Friends because of his efforts to destroy the reputation of David Lowe, concerning whom he knows diddly squat about what he is saying.


(Malcolm's "reading")


The original (see Tamalaca's link) is posted below to indicate how accurately David is subconciously aware of his own neurosis, even if his personal dishonesty prevents him from consciously acknowledging this....


It has been David's theory almost from his first post on the Rick Ross forum, that if you can destroy a person's reputation sufficiently, then you even become immune to charges of libel because, in his thinking, "You have not done any damage, because he had a bad reputation to begin with."

Reputation appears to be the god of Quakerism these days, where control is exercised by the Society's ability to destroy someone's reputation, regardless of whether that person is ever given a chance to defend themselves and regardless of whether there is any substance to the damnation that is meted out to people who do not toe the line. I dared to question David's involvement in this whole thing, and that has brought the full force of the Society's rage down on me and the rest of the Jesus Christians.

David, like so many gossips the word over, seems to think that he only has to say "It is said", and he is protected against a lawsuit for libel. But the truth is, David, you would have to (in a court of law) produce your source. If you can't do that, then it becomes your own vicious, destructive lie, and you get all the credit (or all the blame) yourself.

So can you tell me what your source is for the lie that we are selling thousands of books to the Kenyan Quaker schools at an average price of a dollar a book? Until you do then you must take the full credit for such a blatant lie. And any who support and defend you in that lie need to think seriously about how it may reflect upon them and the organisations that they represent if/when your dishonesty becomes public.

For the record, David Lowe (at least in this instance) is, IMO, a damned liar, and should be kicked out of the Australian Society of Friends because of his efforts to destroy our reputation even in Kenya, where he knows diddly squat about what he is saying.


(David's original)


In the relation to the paragraph I skipped (I not that Private Eyes preceded his original comment with the qualifying "allegedly" hence gutting David's self serving psedo legal acrimony.....and again the patently obvious endeavour to bluff someone into revealing information David could put to his own bad use..)

So can you tell me what your source is for the lie that we are selling thousands of books to the Kenyan Quaker schools at an average price of a dollar a book? Until you do then you must take the full credit for such a blatant lie. And any who support and defend you in that lie need to think seriously about how it may reflect upon them and the organisations that they represent if/when your dishonesty becomes public.

I speculate that MOST of the sales in Kenya of David McKay’s tepid written work are directly attributable to the criminal practise of MISREPRESENTATION (dishonestly using a fabricated association with the good name of the Quakers to win interest in the JesusChristian publications)…..which is why the business dealings and finances in Kenya of the JesusChristians are of IMMEDIATE interest to the Quakers and the practise of deceitfully refusing to disclose such dealings, (and duplicitously claiming to be on “three months leave”) are deliberate stratagems to be able to further the illegal profit that David draws from this fraudulent behaviour, as long as possible….

“Ex dolo malo non oritur actio” (from fraud a right of action does not arise)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2008 12:45PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

Kimono wrote:

"As children of the light we are supposed to make known what is NOT of the light, as well as to live in accordance with the light. We are called to do something to expose what is false, not just live by what makes us feel 'light'"

[welikejesus.com]

Yes to that!

And we are doing just that in "exposing what is false" regarding the sinful lies about an innocent Quaker man. Unfortunately the source of those lies seems impervious to our truthful testimony, and ignores the matter he knows is a grevious sin in the face of the light of truth itself.

Like Dave, I like good spelling. I spelt that word wrong: I meant a "Grievous Sin". He's done that alot!!!!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2008 07:22PM by Blackhat.

Hi Tofferer.

It's good that we can both recognise when Dave picks and chooses the points he wants to address.

After Dave wrote: "I do hope that we can discuss these issues a bit" it is unfortunate that he bags you out for trying and collectivises you, along with ALL who have received theological training, as being "indoctrinated" "yes-men" and for failing to explain why all the theologians of the world don't agree on everything... (perhaps they are not all yes-men?)

While Dave dismisses theology and the study of Greek as "a serious hindrance in finding the truth" and brags about not being an expert in either field he proceeds to make theological arguments over the original meaning of Greek words in a circular effort to prove himself right and everyone else wrong. If you are expected to rationalise everyone's theological differences before Dave will treat you with some respect, does that means you have to explain why Dave can't get along with everyone he differs with too?

It seems Dave likes to play the role of expert and simpleton at the same time, so he can hurl his arguments with the weight that 'even-a-simpletone-like-me-can-see-how-stupid-you-are' while he can shelter his unsubstantiated bluff from criticism. The fact is Dave has spent his whole adult life constructing theological arguments which readers can quizz themselves on after receiving their 'indoctrination'. Elsewhere on his forum he unashamedly discussed how he hardly reads anything as it gets too boring reading other authors. This sounds like a form of "mental hygiene" where he only listens to his own arguments so he won't be distracted by what anyone else has to say.

You presented your case for why you believe your position is "valid" and since its a view shared by many others, it would seem reasonable. if Dave would like to explain how he sees something differently, he can do that without the unnecessary ridicule, particularly when his own position is that such issues are not important. One would think this would give plenty of scope for him to accommodate your views.

When people have become uncomfortable with Dave's narrow and caustic criticisms of others and have reminded him of passages where Jesus instructs us to be slow to pass judgements on others, he has responded, "then don't judge me judging", as he suggests such a position is an impossible hypocrisy. It would seem Dave is in that same position now that he tries to lecture you on how love and unity is more important than arguing with him.

Dave can challenge you for suggesting that the term "Bishop" means "father", saying "Where on Earth did you hear that?" and try to link its etymology to the role of a shepherd, but my common English dictionary defines the origins of bishop as "overseer" or "guardian" (no reference to sheep or those caring for them). If the school forms I have to sign can be believed the term "guardian" is equal to parent or "father".

It really does sound like Dave is straining at a gnat here. And considering the same passage in Matthew 23 targets the term/office of "leader" and "teacher" with the same weight as "father", perhaps the camel he is swallowing, is that Jesus was opposing the whole idea of spirituality built around a pecking order where those claiming spiritual authority rule over others, and not just suggesting they find some PC terms to use for their office instead.

I would suggest that anyone in a group being led by someone claiming special authority to wield a "rod of correction" over its dissidents consider this passage and a verse in 1 John 2 which says "let the anointing you have received remain, and you have no need for any man to teach you, but the same anointing will teach you of all things..." You don't need Dave to follow your own "unction" or "anointing", and "overseers" like Dave can be a serious hindrance in finding the truth.