Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Finally, A Rational Discussion about Shepherd's Chapel! Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Finally, A Rational Discussion about Shepherd's Chapel!

    I dedicate this thread to the wandering souls here at FactNet who are looking for a new home.

    The goal is to keep this clean and above board. However, more importantly, let's keep our self respect in ALL discussions! Some of us will do well to remember that we're trying to set an example; it's expedient to our overall goals.

    The title is self explanatory- the subject matter can be volatile.

    So, if we check the (bad) attitude in at the door, and bring on our best game, maybe we can really get down to "where the rubber meets the road". Otherwise, this will just be a needless waste of everyone's time.


    Remember, only above the belt on this thread. Otherwise, it could suffer the same fate as it's predecessor!

    To either side of the isle: THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR DEBATE!




  • #2
    I'm game if the main focus can be what Arnold Murray does and does not teach, and the validity of the doctrines we do agree he teaches. Quite frankly, I do not believe that Smyrna can prove he does not teach the things I've claimed that he insists I'm making up. I do not believe he can document SC doctrines such as serpent seed, 1st earth age, etc. are biblical. I believe I can, and have, on both counts.

    Let's go through it doctrine by doctrine, claim by claim. I would further suggest that as each topic is concluded the members of factnet be allowed to choose a victor. This should only include anyone who can prove they have posted on a Shep Chapel thread before today's date (this post) and in the past year (time frame is somewhat negotiable), or Smyrna would lose regardless of whether he won or not. There are, of course, far more people who are against Shep Chapel than for it on factnet as a whole. If I "won" under those circumstances it would be a hollow victory. I mean, all I'd have to do is pm the entire member roster to come vote, and even 10% of respondents would give me the victory. Additionally, it should be judged not only by whose doctrine one agree with, but also on who they think has presented a better case.

    Also, it should be understood that I have limited time on occasion, and I assume that Smyrna might too. I don't want to be rushed, nor will I feel it's settled until all/most observers agree it's settled, or he and I agree the subject is concluded.

    Lastly, I've had Smyrna on ignore for several months, so I'm not for a bunch of flaming and the other rhetoric. I'm probably not going to wilt like a hothouse lily just because he says something facetious, but I want it understood that if it becomes excessive I may say the he!! with it, and that it in no way proves his side. I do not consider flames and ad hominems to add to or be proof of one's position, and I'm not for wasting my time if that's going to be the case. If Smyrna has his own conditions I'd like to hear them beforehand and agree to them, too.
    Last edited by stage director; 09-24-2011, 10:32 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi,

      I would like defined the doctrines that Shepherd's Chapel believes in with current documentation.
      These Heresy Hunters and Supporteres of Shepherd's Chapel look ridiculous to me taking a small statement out of context that Murray made in 1991 or 1994 to state that this is the way he believes. I stated that I looked at the Statement of Faith and Answers to Critics from Shepherd's Chapel's website and found that the doctrine of the Godhead was very vague. If Murray believes in Oneness doctrine he needs to hire a theologian, like Don Williams of Vineyard, to define his Statement of Faith.

      * Godhead
      ** Deity of Christ
      ** Trinity
      ** Holy Spirit
      * Serpent Seed
      * Serpent & Satan
      * Flood
      * Kenites as regards to Jews
      * Earth Age

      I would like these defined for me better with current documenation. There are basic ideas that a person needs to be to know Jesus Christ as LORD, and there are some issues that people can disagree on and still be Christians and friends.

      Comment


      • #4
        Unless I'm mistaken, I believe both of us agree that Murray teaches the deity of Christ and that the Godhead is the entirety of God, consisting of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. What's your question regarding this subject:

        ** Holy Spirit

        Comment


        • #5
          Kestrel, you wrote that any serious conversation about Shepherd’s Chapel has to include what you said were “unresolved issues.” I would ask that you compile a list and present them here.

          Smyrna, you wrote that your opponents have made allegations concerning Arnold Murray and Shepherd’s Chapel that you’ve disputed which have remained unanswered. I would ask that you compile a list and present them here.

          Once that is accomplished, we can pick one topic at a time and debate it. Each of you can present your point of view along with evidence to support it, then listen to a response from your opponent. This will not include incivility, name-calling, or insults. I would ask that you employ the Golden Rule, to treat others the way you would want to be treated yourself. If your opponent is uncivil, do not respond in kind; because this usually escalates into personal arguments that no longer focus on the topic. As moderator, I will sanction such behavior according to the rules.

          Stage Director, the subject of what Arnold Murray does and does not teach and the validity of his doctrines is way beyond the scope of such a debate. What I want to do is concentrate on “unresolved issues” and “allegations” that Kestrel and Smyrna consistently bring up.

          Is everybody in agreement? If so, I believe we can resolve some long-standing issues here that have been the cause of so many years of conflict. As moderator, I will always be impartial.

          Josh.

          Comment


          • #6
            Josh, this sounds like a good idea. And I would be very happy to participate as well with regards to allegations that have yet to be proved. This is my main area of focus and why I decided to become neutral. I myself jumped the gun when I put up things on another forum a few years ago. You cannot assume things about a person using links and ties. The man that you brought up the other night stage has a book he wrote about this very subject, which I just found when I started researching what you said. And I gotta tell ya the irony was pretty funny! I'm going to include this in my post that I will be starting right now as to why I decided to become neutral. Being that it has to do with the subject of the debate as well as just the whole argument in general I think it would be a great debate. But if it is just going to be smyrna and stage debating how will we be involved to voice our opinions?

            Stage, I do not see the point of people voting on who wins or loses, as you said there are more on this website that are against Murray than for so eiher way it would not be fair to smyrna. It is only natural for that to be this way because this is a site that is against many many different religious denominations and/or cults. If you were on neutral ground I'd say it would be a good idea, but not when the odds are stacked against him like they are here. If you went to a pro Murray forum and debated do you think that you would win? Seriously, I do not see what the point of that is. There is no win or lose here, the purpose of the debate is to clear up unresolved issues not winning or losing. That is very subjective and when there are so many on here that are against Murray it would never be a fair vote because they are biased from the start.

            Comment


            • #7
              I am sure i will be alone in my opinion but that has never stopped me from voicing it before, so here goes.
              With all due respect Josh125 this has all been tried before on many occasions and failed.
              Nabashalam is well aware of all of the attempts that have been made to have moderated debates here.
              I don't know why he would agree to do it again.

              The only way that you will have a nice "clean" board is to shut down these threads and get rid of the people involved.
              When and if that happens we will simply move to another message board, but at least it will solve your problem.
              If that is what you want then do it now don't waste time trying something that has failed in the past and will surely fail again.
              The problems that exist here are not simple disagreements over "doctrine" they are personality driven, it will make you crazy if you get too involved.

              Things are much better than they have been in a good long time.
              Give it another 5yrs and it may be better yet.
              People need a chance to grow.
              If this is no longer a place for them to do so then just shut it all down and be done with it.
              Then we can move somewhere else and continue with what needs to be done.

              I will say in defense of Factnet, that this is the best place for all of this to play itself out.
              The moderation needs to be tough and unbiased and i have not seen any other board that has provided that thus far.
              If you want to moderate these threads then do it, but don't think you are going to work out "unresolved differences" with a debate.
              These problems need much more than a debate they need a great deal of time and plenty of freedom to run their course.
              In some cases it may take a lifetime.

              It might be that some of us might need to be forced to take a break but we all play a role.
              God is patient, He understands the enormity of the problem.
              You might want to consider what you are up against here a little more thoroughly.
              Take a look at the history, spend some time reading the archives.
              What you will find is that there has been some real growth that has taken place here and Factnet can claim a role in that.
              Don't ruin it now.

              I have seen about every type of personality that exits here at one point or another, all 144,000 of them.
              It is one of the most fascinating exchanges i have ever taken part in.
              Everyone of them has a place in the growth process, if they didn't they wouldn't be here.
              Most of them have been fractured beyond recognition but i have seen some of them heal.
              I am living testimony of that.
              Just take a look at my posting history if you don't believe me.

              This message board is one of the most unique boards on the internet, it should be left alone.
              Rules are good, even debates are good, but don't let them get in the way of a person's growth or think they are going to solve the problems that people come here with.
              We have an entire book full of the best rules in existence, I'm talking about the Bible of course, and yet has that kept things all nice and clean?
              Maybe a little more prayer is in order?
              Last edited by fatherofaking; 09-25-2011, 04:00 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I will include unresolved issues that I myself have heard from those that are against Murray in my post as well. When I began to question stage the other night on the old thread it appeared she took it as an attack of some sort, which it wasn't. She made the comment that she doesn't give information to folks for the purpose of Murray being some sort of icon or hero. I'm not really sure where that line of thinking came from, nothing could be further from the truth. I have never though of Murray as an icon or hero and that is definitely not why I asked her about the allegations that have been made and where the proof can be found. I mean if you are going to make a claim about someone's past such as he use to run one of so and so's churches, I would think it shouldn't be that hard to find that information but it seems it is because I have been trying to find something on it and haven't. The idea of me asking for this information has nothing at all to do with believing Murray is a hero, and that idea has several implications behind it as well. It isn't too hard to figure out especially when it involves someone such as Wesley Swift. Something I didn't appreciate at all, but I let it go, although I am not now obviously. lol

                Her comment took me by surprise because I have never known her to implicate me in that way or to think that I would want this information to frame on my wall for the purpose of a trophy of some sort. Yeah um thought that was a pretty ridiculous comment, but I do not hold grudges so no harm done.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi there Shadowcat,

                  Good to see you logged on. This must mean your reading is caught up, laundry finished, strawberry preserves put up, and the TV broken. LOL!

                  I see FOAK has made a rather substantial contribution to this thread already. But I still have yet to read it!

                  And that's where I'm going this minute, and after that work on the rest of Dodge's reply to a post regarding the "First Earth Age". It should only take about? I never know things things; it keeps my world interesting.

                  So, I'll be satelliting Shadowcat.....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Shadowcat, the way this is going to work is once we get the list of “allegations” and “unresolved issues,” and the two who agree to debate (I assume Smyrna and Stage Director), a thread will be opened where only those two can post. Another thread will be open for others to comment on the debate itself.

                    If either Smyrna or Stage Director choose not to participate, I will ask for volunteers to represent Shepherd’s Chapel and the opposition. What we’re going to do is pick from the list of allegations and unresolved issues one topic at a time, and explore the truth or falsity of each.

                    There will be no personal attacks, only comments relating to the subject being debated will be tolerated. All opinions or declarations must be accompanied by supporting evidence. There will be a limit set on each post length, and enough time (probably 24 hours) to respond. What we’re looking for is a rational and mature method of resolving issues that have been causing animosity between students of Arnold Murray and their critics here on FactNet's discussion board.

                    Until I get the lists of allegations and unresolved issues from Kestrel and Smyrna and agreements to participate, the debate can’t go forward. Of course, you can do whatever you want, and it might give us a look forward as to what subjects may come up. I see you’ve already started with some comments about Stage Director. I will leave it up to her to respond.

                    God Bless,

                    Josh.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Say Folks,

                      I haven't been logged onto FN for the better part of 24 hours +, but I see (we've) managed to get Capt. Josh's attention already. And worse yet, my name is on a post or two. I better read them.

                      Shouldn't us kids be able to go swimming without the lifeguard????

                      Kestrel

                      PS
                      I'm willing to cut the jokes down, if it helps towards a resolution. But let's hope that it doesn't have to come to that! LOL!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Stage Director, the subject of what Arnold Murray does and does not teach and the validity of his doctrines is way beyond the scope of such a debate. What I want to do is concentrate on “unresolved issues” and “allegations” that Kestrel and Smyrna consistently bring up.
                        Hi, Josh. I disagree. I've listen to five years of Smyrna claiming I am making up the things I say Murray teaches, and then claim over and over again that's he's proven that I made them up. Why should I defend what he claims are unresolved issues if he isn't prepared to prove his claims that I've lied about Murray's teachings?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Stage, I do not see the point of people voting on who wins or loses, as you said there are more on this website that are against Murray than for so eiher way it would not be fair to smyrna.
                          But not those who have posted on the SPLC thread in the last year or so. I think that's pretty even. However, if my memory is faulty about the odds, I did say that was negotiable. I guess it would depend on whether Smyrna considers it fair, and he hasn't said anything.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kestrel View Post
                            Hi there Shadowcat,

                            Good to see you logged on. This must mean your reading is caught up, laundry finished, strawberry preserves put up, and the TV broken. LOL!

                            I see FOAK has made a rather substantial contribution to this thread already. But I still have yet to read it!

                            And that's where I'm going this minute, and after that work on the rest of Dodge's reply to a post regarding the "First Earth Age". It should only take about? I never know things things; it keeps my world interesting.

                            So, I'll be satelliting Shadowcat.....
                            Right! And yes I hear ya, it takes me forever to get caught up and then when I do I start responding to the posts and then run out of time or initiative to write the post about why I decided to stay neutral which I have been wanting to post but haven't found the time to do it. I'm trying to figure out a way to write it so that it doesn't become a thesis! LOL In other words so long. I think I'm gonna make a list as though I was going to write an essay and put the main points up, but then I'm gonna try to condense it into a few paragraphs.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Fatherofaking, there may have been some formal debates here at FactNet’s forum in the past; but not lately as far as I can see. What we’re doing here is attempting conflict resolution; trying to stop the aggressive rhetoric, the name-calling, the hostile relationships between members here that has led to a breakdown in communication and bad feelings.

                              I refuse to believe, as you said, that the only solution is to “get rid of the people involved,” though, of course, you’re entitled to your opinion. You said that the problems here are “personality driven,” and there may be a lot of truth to that; but I believe in redemption, in people coming together if given a chance at understanding one another’s motives and feelings. Underneath it all each of us is human with the same hopes and fears and desires, and that’s the place where we recognize one another as brothers and sisters.

                              My job as moderator is to make sure the rules of the forum are not disregarded and to maintain the peace if I can. I will give everyone here a chance to redeem themselves, to treat others the way they would want to be treated; however, if a member here chooses to continue with hostile behavior that is intended to belittle, demean, or in any way intimidate others, there will be consequences. Hopefully, we won’t have to resort to revoking posting privileges; but that’s up to each of you.

                              God Bless,

                              Josh.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X