I would certainly concur that David is so morally despicable that the "Nathan" tirade is simply a way to fabricate an "inadequacy" that David can then painfully probe and "milk" for what its worth in order to dissuade Apostate from making the quality of the postings that he does....oh the "filth" that a sordid mind can conspire to...but then again..... if David is so interested in making some "painful" probing into the murky past....

OH MY GOD!!!..lsa@%@...

"…even as a child you were prideful, vain, rebellious. That was the word she used to sum up her memory of you as a kid: rebellious. She further told me that she now realizes that your father was right and that you were lacking in discipline and were extremely manipulative".

I am just SO-O-O sorry but my fingers slipped on the keyboard and accidentally copied some of the testimony of Davids' OWN mother on PAGE 196 of this forum onto this posting.....this is the testimony that we all know cut to the deep with David due to all the effort he went to get brother What's-his-name" to decry it...Oh I'm so sorry because I'm aware of just how much this is personally painful to David (gutting as it does all the fabrications of himself that he hides behind....hmm, but you know....then again,... it is rather strange that his mother would say this as it is actually very difficult to get direct family to testify against their own children....even people such as Hitler and Idi Amin don't have their own mothers publicly disparaging them....)....I hope none of you will let if affect the way you view David

Oh, but I'm getting distracted here....we were discussing "Nathan" won't we....and the fact that David castigates him as a brat, must then "disprove" anything further that Apostate might have to say....Whoops.....!

OH NO!!!

"She told me that she did her best to raise you good and that she has not a drop of pride in you or what you do. She knows about how you rip families apart, and how you have a pattern of jumping onto other people’s bandwagons and trying to take over other people’s projects, and told me of how she is just ashamed of you and for who you turned out to be"

My God!!! Here's another extract that I've pulled up, going and pressing all the wrong keys, in my foolish haste to post here....oh I'm so sorry....going and pointing out all of Davids's personal inadequacies yet again and the sophistry that has characterized him over the course of his entire life.....God!....this must be just so personally distressing for David.....that's just so...well you know (but unintentionally of course...) almost...sort of, deliberately provocative on my part isn't it...(.....but looking back...."not a drop of pride in him", I see ....that's very strongly worded isn't is...and for HIS mother!!)

....forgive me all...we do HAVE to get back onto this "Nathan" crisis don't we....and what it all implies about Apostate's character (....it's just I just so sidetracked with all the extraneous truths about David so often)....

...and after all...lets face it!..... whatever David's own mother might have once said can be easily denied......once she's dead!

(...and I'm sure Satan faithfully considers your nightly prayers David, with all the devotion he that would feel obliged to show towards his most loyal entourage......)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2008 12:23PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

I'd also prefer to see a "policy" observed that those who choose to remain anonymous in their postings here, not be subject to any pressure to disclose their identity.....people who choose to participate in the forum should be able to do so at a level of "disclosure" with which they are personally comfortable....Ross has the tools necessary to unearth any "bogus identities" that seek to troll the forum.....hence we can leave such concerns in his capable hands....I would personally otherwise, see the postings here as matters concerning those who choose to participate and the responsibilities that those self same individuals perceive that they have towards God......

Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
...people who choose to participate in the forum should be able to do so at a level of "disclosure" with which they are personally comfortable...

I agree.

Thanks for your somewhat humorous support Malcolm regarding Dave's public accusations of minors. Now while wiping the mud off myself that he is doing his best to make stick, lets take some time to reflect upon some of the highlights of our discussions with Dave.

One biggie was that it is perfectly justifiable in the JC courtroom to whip those considered sinful. He boldly proclaimed his new revelation about how loving the whip on someones back is on his website, providing us with a wonderful example of the time he ordered the public whipping of a Kenyan volunteer. It causes one to wonder what other punishments have been meted out to the disobedient that we don't know about. I am sure in time that it will all leak out.

Then there was his confusion over what constitutes coercion to the point where he sees no force involved in the act of paedophilia. (i.e. where an adult sexually abuses a child) Dave seems to have difficulty accepting that undeveloped minds are forced to engage in a sex act by the coercion a more developed adult mind can utilise (i.e. guilt, rewards, etc) which does equal the use of force.

This confusion was played out in his justifications when he physically grabbed one of his son's wives by the shoulder, lifting her off the ground and got his followers to block her exit.

Dave claims he is a "Quaker", or a "Christian", and yet when anyone seeks to present a simple teaching of Jesus to him, say "turn the other cheek", he immediately engages in justifications why it is sometimes neccessary to harm people with a whip, rifle, or threat of court action. Dave uses the "it was a hypothetical scenario" to defend his justifications of the time he fantasized about killing someone in India. The thing that he refuses to acknowledge is that the decision to whip someone also began as a "hypothetical" train of thought, and then became reality as the seed grew.

For a "Quaker" there is certainly a significant amount of violence being justifed. No ex member ever whipped anybody, no ex member says there is no force involved in the act of paedophilia, no ex member agreed with Dave's fantasies of shooting someone. Could it be that the reason we are all ex members is so that Dave can surround himself with people who cannot challenge him in these areas? They claim they are individuals, but I have never seen one example of individuality taking place on their so called forum. No disagreement, nobody going "Hang on Dave... reel it back a bit", or "Dave, I disagree". Not once have I seen that. Just silent consent, or egging on!

Hey Jeremy, how about telling Dave to get used to the speed of your avatar and to stop whining about it? He doesn't suffer from epilepsy. Or would that be considered an act of selfish rebellion, framed as an example of you being "out of the Spirit" if you said NO?

Any who express an alternate perspective are quickly segregrated or banned. No, their "public forum" is a bit like the Monty Python flick "Life of Brian" where the crowd shouts out "We are all individuals"



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2008 03:49PM by apostate.

Quoting Dave:
The whip situation DID involve a crime against ourselves, and we DID "turn the other cheek" in terms of offering to take the punishment ourselves. Remember that "turning the other cheek" is more or less ASKING to be "whipped", and that is what we did. Being whipped is violent... we agree. But being hit on the other cheek is violent too. We just asked that the violence be applied to the OTHER cheeks! Ha! With court action, Craig is closer to the truth. It does involve a kind of hitting back, except that it is legal action rather than violence. If we are so evil for contemplating court action, then so is just about every religious organisation in the world.

Ho hum. A couple of things here Dave I feel I need to point out for the sake of clarity.

1. You neglect to own up to actually publicly whipping someone for a crime against you.

2. You are being asked to compare your lack of turning the other cheek with JESUS life's example and teachings ... NOT with "every other religious organisation in the world".

3. You are using flawed reasoning to say turning the other cheek is the same as "asking to be whipped" in a illigitimate JC courtroom where you have taken the law into your own hands to punish that Kenyan volunteer.

Quote
apostate
They claim they are individuals, but I have never seen one example of individuality taking place on their so called forum. No disagreement, nobody going "Hang on Dave... reel it back a bit", or "Dave, I disagree". Not once have I seen that. Just silent consent, or egging on!

Hey Jeremy, how about telling Dave to get used to the speed of your avatar and to stop whining about it? He doesn't suffer from epilepsy. Or would that be considered an act of selfish rebellion, framed as an example of you being "out of the Spirit" if you said NO?

Any who express an alternate perspective are quickly segregrated or banned. No, their "public forum" is a bit like the Monty Python flick "Life of Brian" where the crowd shouts out "We are all individuals"

The point you make here, Apostate, is the clear difference between 'our' forum and theirs. No doubt they'll sacrifice even more sales of their literature to try and reason their way out of this. For a bunch of so-called Christians, they'll hypocritically state that they don't want to immerse themselves in negativity and then state again and again what a hateful bunch we are. So, I say to them, just leave well enough alone. Don't read our hateful rhetoric, it's only going to stir you up with negative feelings. Or are the Shadows emerging?

But I think I'll be looking forward to a further addition to my personal thread on the JC forum. I don't mind. Break it down line by line. I would prefer, however, that it was titled, Jack Oskar Larm, instead of Jack Larm. Can you please make that correction for the sake of clarity, because, according to Facebook, there is another Jack Larm...I wouldn't want to be confused with him.

It is interesting that Dave chose to ignore the observation that there appears to be no evidence whatsover of any indivduality on their forum. We may have arguments here, but at least it is evidence of individual thought and actions. Certainly cannot say the same for the Jesus Christians.

I also thought I would add a bit more to my above post after reflecting some more on Dave's past actions, comments, and what he has just said.

Dave said, in defence of not turning the other cheek:

If we are so evil for contemplating court action, then so is just about every religious organisation in the world.


It is curious that Dave would seek to compare himself with every religious organisation in the world. His Kingdom of Heaven vs Religion study looked for common denominators between religions to show just what makes them the antithesis of what Christ taught and I seem to recall along with buildings and power structures came defence for their organisation (at least in the original version).

If we look at Christ's attitude toward court action it seemed it was always something an enemy did which was to be absorbed in a manner consistent with his teaching regarding violence. The Sermon on the Mount teaches us to "agree with thine adversary while you are in the way with him lest he takes you to court." (Mtt 5:25) and the famous "turn the other cheek" instruction is immediately followed by; "If someone takes you to court to sue you for your shirt let them have your coat as well." (Mtt 5:40) When Jesus was brought before the courts he refused to defend himself, saying his kingdom is not of this world and Jesus instructed his disciples not to do things as the "Pharisees" or the "pagans" did, but Dave seems to want the freedom to do as everyone else while claiming the right to use Christ's teachings to judge them all as hypocrites.


If we are going to be judged by the measure with which we judge others, Dave has a heavy sentence coming his way.

I also read this morning Dave's account of the balcony "vision" in which he fantasized shooting a rampaging rioter with a sniper rifle which he's describing now as just a rational hypothetical. It was anything but.
We had just endured a period of religious rioting in which gangs roamed with machetes looking for people from the opposing community to assault and we had been shouting out teachings from Gandhi to disarm such violence from the balcony that looked out over the street. A lot of us had been reading Gandhi's autobiography and teachings and were trying to practise his non violent methods of peacemaking when Dave had his day dream while sitting on the balcony and said it was so real he was reaching for the non existent rifle before he came to address everyone in a wide eyed state and relayed his profound epiphany that he said bordered on a vision while in a conscious state. Personally, I think it was manifestation of his narcissistic need for control, not just over activities outside his window, but over the community itself which had become enlivened to ideas that came from another source. Attila resisted Dave's revelation suggesting it reflected the instinctive response that escalates all violent conflicts and reflects the same logic behind the arms race, but Dave pushed the issue to the point where Attila was on the verge of being asked to leave and had to concede a point Gandhi had made that action is superior to inaction, even if Attila still felt that non-violent action is superior to violence.

Quote
apostate
... Dave had his day dream while sitting on the balcony and said it was so real he was reaching for the non existent rifle before he came to address everyone in a wide eyed state and relayed his profound epiphany that he said bordered on a vision while in a conscious state. Personally, I think it was manifestation of his narcissistic need for control, not just over activities outside his window, but over the community itself which had become enlivened to ideas that came from another source ...

This image reminds me of the graphic scene in Schindler's List when the Nazi concentration camp leader(?) played by Ralph Fiennes (Amon Goeth) picks up his high-calibre rifle and starts shooting the inmates. The 'official' synopsis from Moviefone (Schindler's List):

However, in 1942, all of Krakow's Jews are assigned to the Plaszow Forced Labor Camp, overseen by Commandant Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes), an embittered alcoholic who occasionally shoots prisoners from his balcony.

Some choice dialogue from this movie:

Reiter: I'm a graduate of Civil Engineering from the University of Milan.
Amon Goeth: Ah, an educated Jew... like Karl Marx himself. Unterscharfuehrer!
Hujar: Jawohl?
Amon Goeth: Shoot her.
Reiter: Herr Kommandant! I'm only trying to do my job!
Amon Goeth: Ja, I'm doing mine.

Oskar Schindler: Power is when we have every justification to kill, and we don't.
Amon Goeth: You think that's power?
Oskar Schindler: That's what the Emperor said. A man steals something, he's brought in before the Emperor, he throws himself down on the ground. He begs for his life, he knows he's going to die. And the Emperor... pardons him. This worthless man, he lets him go.
Amon Goeth: I think you are drunk.
Oskar Schindler: That's power, Amon. That is power.

Disturbing.

I don't know AlAntony's position within the JCs, but one of his latest posts is quite revealing, especially in context to what has been posted here recently:

I truly feel sorry for Shazoolo who has not considered the truth of ‘The Bible’ at all. Shazoolo comes across as self-righteous, prideful and in desperate need of a brain/hair transplant. I agree with Roland, Shazoolo is a nitpicker who can see everybody else’s sins and faults but cannot see his own faults or his religions faults. Shazoolo needs to desperately pick up a history book to see what church he is truly worshipping [sic]. Last count, ‘The Jesus Christian’s’ [sic] haven’t killed anybody and have not participated in wars. You need to take that splinter out of your own Shazoolo and address the sins of your own church.

And just when the circus was getting dull:

JCs and Tattoos

I, for one, will be interested in Herr McKay's responses to this sticky matter, particularly 'sad' posts from potential recruits...lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2008 11:20AM by Jack Oskar Larm.