Apollo said

Quote

''And, for Christ's sake, stop hating them.''
This is really obvious. 'And for Christ's sake stop hating Davejc and just let him get on with his predatory ways in peace.'

Once again, Apollo, I have difficulty with your extrapolation. To ask people to stop hating offenders is a reasonable stance, particularly for those who see "That of God" in all humans.

I fail to see how you can make this link. Your logic is beginning to baffle me, and it is beginning to look like you are just out for blood because Dave gave you a bad serve on a chat.

Why not stick to real, actual things, rather than your own wild extrapolations? I can give you many reasons why I disagree with Dave and his approach, but the way you are twisting this paedophile thing is beyond logic.

Another thing which Dave said about paedophilia has been taken completely out of context. Maybe his wording in the original posting was ambiguous, because he assumed that his readers knew that he is a very moral person regarding sex. But some people took his quote out of context, and so he re-worded his statement to clarify. That is a liberty I would allow anyone who found that an off-the-cuff comment was being taken out of context, and being used to defame someone. Dave's revised statement, where he clarified his meaning, says:

Quote

"But a better example than bestiality, to show that sex can be immoral (and even illegal) without the kind of force that we traditionally equate with rape, is paedophilia. Kids are not (as a general rule) PHYSICALLY forced to have sex by paedophiles, and yet society says it is wrong. I know, I know, they are not adults, and so the argument that any form of sex between "consenting adults" is okay does not apply to them. But the topic was force, and this just further illustrates that there are other grounds besides force on which to measure morality. And so what we Jesus Christians decided to experiment with is just trying to follow the rules as we honestly and humbly think God wrote them, i.e. that having sex with anyone (man, woman, child, or animal) outside of marriage is wrong."

[www.jesus-teachings.com]

Now you can't get any clearer than that. And even Kevin's testimony about Dave saying that they couldn't dine with adulterers shows a conservative approach to sex.

If Apollo and Stoic want to continue down this path of saying that Dave was an apologist for paedophilia, then so be it, but I will not be a part of it. Trying to understand a complex human problem of child sex offences with humanity and Christian conscience does NOT equate to being an apologist for child sexual offences.

Hi Blackhat,

It was I who made the comments you are attributing to Apollo----and I stand by them.
You are taking my comments to have a general application. They do not. They are specifically made about Davejc and his recorded 'teachings' and writings.

I do not comment in an attempt to influence your opinion of Davejc. I comment on what I see, married to my experience of very close asssociation with similar personality types growing up in a cult, and a lifetime spent studying how to avoid ever being so entrapped again by anyone. Call that biased if you like, but the bias is towards whatever freedom is available to any of us in this life.

Whatever his readers assume concerning his morality around sex, the point under discussion here is his method of entrapment of young people, not his personal sexual preferences.

Regarding your statement about god's writing of the rules of marriage, perhaps you might like to look at the historical, economic and social genesis of the contract of marriage--which is a lot more of a modern convention than most preachers would have us believe.


'and it is beginning to look like you are just out for blood because Dave gave you a bad serve on a chat. '

I, stoic, have never had a chat, bad serve or not, with Davejc. He posted a provocative article about me recently that made me laugh.
I, stoic, am often out for blood just as you, Blackhat, often attempt to stir up discord. When I am writing opinions on a discussion board, however, I am just writing my opinions, not hunting.


Merry Christmas to you, my sprouts are on the boil.

[www.youtube.com]

I apologise for my misappropriation. My sentiments remain the same regarding recent postings by both Stoic and Apollo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2010 07:50PM by Blackhat.

Blackhat,

Good morning and Merry Christmas to you.

There is no paedophile agenda here. I am not out for 'blood' because of some silly little chat with Dave.

Do you really think i'd make 300 odd posts on this subject because of some silly little disagreement with Dave?

What i found in my research after my initial chat with Dave McKay is the reason i'm here. I feel very strongly about this after reading the horrifying stories about the Johnson's, the Crofts and many others. This dangerous cult tear apart individual families. I don't like how McKay targets and grooms teenagers for his cult, Bobby Kelly being an example in Britian. This dangerous cult are operating in the United Kingdom and i will do everything within my power to raise awareness against them.

My role is to help provide as much information as possible for newcomers to this thread. This forum will most likely be one of the first stop's for anyone considering joining the JCs cult. These people are literally giving up their whole life for this man and his cult so they deserve to know as much information about McKay and his cult as possible.

Quote
Blackhat
Another thing which Dave said about paedophilia has been taken completely out of context. Maybe his wording in the original posting was ambiguous, because he assumed that his readers knew that he is a very moral person regarding sex. But some people took his quote out of context, and so he re-worded his statement to clarify. That is a liberty I would allow anyone who found that an off-the-cuff comment was being taken out of context, and being used to defame someone. Dave's revised statement, where he clarified his meaning, says:

Quote

"But a better example than bestiality, to show that sex can be immoral (and even illegal) without the kind of force that we traditionally equate with rape, is paedophilia. Kids are not (as a general rule) PHYSICALLY forced to have sex by paedophiles, and yet society says it is wrong. I know, I know, they are not adults, and so the argument that any form of sex between "consenting adults" is okay does not apply to them. But the topic was force, and this just further illustrates that there are other grounds besides force on which to measure morality. And so what we Jesus Christians decided to experiment with is just trying to follow the rules as we honestly and humbly think God wrote them, i.e. that having sex with anyone (man, woman, child, or animal) outside of marriage is wrong."

[www.jesus-teachings.com]

Now you can't get any clearer than that. And even Kevin's testimony about Dave saying that they couldn't dine with adulterers shows a conservative approach to sex.

If Apollo and Stoic want to continue down this path of saying that Dave was an apologist for paedophilia, then so be it, but I will not be a part of it. Trying to understand a complex human problem of child sex offences with humanity and Christian conscience does NOT equate to being an apologist for child sexual offences.

When i look at his various quotes regarding paedophilia i don't feel he's been clear at all. Here's a few quotes from his own son which further backs this up...

Kevin wrote:

Quote

Dave has sought to blame me for questioning the ambiguity of quotes he made regarding pedophilia for the various allegations that have followed, and even suggested I initiated this discussion out of the blue. This is not true. The original discussion began in response to a poster on the JCs forum who asked why the JCs considered it a sin for consenting homosexuals to enter relationships comparable to heterosexual marriage. This woman suggested that morality needs to be based on an understanding of minimising harm with the example of rape in which the use of force against someone is manifestly wrong. Dave was trying to suggest some things are immoral just because God/society says so. The problem was that in comparing pedophilia to homosexuality and in the argument that so-called "seduction" negates the issue of force, Dave appeared to fail to grasp the issue of coercion and the sense of real harm that occurs when an adult abuses the trust of a child.

Kevin wrote:

Quote

Perhaps in Dave's mind he was just having an intellectual discussion and so it was not fair to try and analyse what he says beyond that. But a point is not justified just because you can spin an argument to defend it, and the isolation of Dave-speak from the real world seems to be part of the problem. How else can you explain the whipping trial that went ahead it seems against the good counsel of his own members? Dave seemed to lose sight of the forest with his interest in the trees in this conversation, and I felt the same myopic logic resulted in a convicted pedophile operating without the necessary supervision required to stop him from re-offending in India. The experiment to see if a pedophile who was accepted into a community where he would be denied the private liberties on his own and where he was surrounded by healthy adult child relationships may assist his rehabilition, failed. There were no community children in India, and so it seemed he was largely unsupervised when he went on to trains to sell Easy English books.

Kevin wrote:

Quote

I recalled Dave's resistance to informing community members of this person's history for fear that the stigma may interfere in his acceptance into the community (although Cherry's counsel ultimately reigned.) And one parents horror in discovering they had left their two children in his direct care in ignorance, and overstated the extent of that problem, for which I apologised. However, the account of another pedophile being sent on outreach with a mother and her children some years later who had not been notified of his history suggests the original issue that I raised might have represented a relevant concern.

Kevin wrote:

Quote

The main point in the forum discussion where Dave denied "force" in relation to the coercion inherent in pedophilia, was that it might reflect a blind spot in his own behaviour in influencing young people to do things they may not have otherwise chosen to do. Dave has argued that parents have had a whole childhood in which to influence their son or daughter's thinking and if they have failed in this regard he is entitled to compete as an influence. Children are exposed to all kinds of influences and we can't wrap them up in cotton wool. But I don't think its normal for a 12 year old child from an Indian village to be told they can come for a visit to Australia where they will be sent to school, but find themselves sent out to flog literature on the street instead and told, when they beg to return home, that they are choosing between serving God or Satan... much less be maligned, when after some thirteen years service, for having joined with ulterior motives and leaving when she saw the prospect of a better life and taking their husband with her. [Comments posted by Ross and defended by Dave]

The above quote shows Kevin McKay further backing up what Stoic and I highlighted on the previous page.

Dave McKay's lax views on paedophilia make him a dangerous man. He puts children at serious risk of harm because of the unethical risks he is willing to take. Anyone considering joining the cult, especially those with children, have the right to this information. His own son has highlighted the fact he failed to inform his victims/followers that they were working alongside a convicted paedophile.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2010 08:22PM by Apollo.

Apollo, (and I've got the right poster this time? Hehe!)

That is my intention too, and it has a similar background to you. I just don't think posting stuff about child abuse is appropriate. Given Dave's complete opposition to any sex outside marriage, I think to continue this line of attack is counter-productive. What do you think?

So Dave mis-handled having a paedophile presenting to him. He didn't know what to do.

Ask any social worker, they will tell you similar situations where they had a ped put one over them. It is not a crime to have a ped put one over you. They do it all the time.....

They think about it in retrospect, and what they should have done, but the peds work so smooth, they get away with it despite the most good intentions of the leader.

I think/suspect that is what happened to Dave in this instance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2010 08:23PM by Blackhat.

Stoic, Kevin and I are only providing information which may be of interest to people considering joining the cult.

Do you not think they're entitled to that information?

Quote
Blackhat
So Dave mis-handled having a paedophile presenting to him. He didn't know what to do.

Ask any social worker, they will tell you similar situations where they had a ped put one over them. It is not a crime to have a ped put one over you. They do it all the time.....

They think about it in retrospect, and what they should have done, but the peds work so smooth, they get away with it despite the most good intentions of the leader.

I think/suspect that is what happened to Dave in this instance.

What do you mean by ''to have a ped put one over you''?

Do you mean to be deceived?

Dave knew the man in India was a convicted paedophile yet he still allowed him to join a cult who were working alongside children on a daily basis and failed to inform all his victims/followers just who they were working alongside.