Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why I think SC doctrine is racist/anti-semite Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why I think SC doctrine is racist/anti-semite

    I'm going to heed Josh's admonishment to stick to the topic by starting another thread. This thread is for dicussion of the following SC doctrines, and any doctrine that closely relates to them:

    Jews vs Kenites/Serpent seed

    The races/Race mixing

    6th day man vs 8th day man

    World that was/Three world ages according to races/nations

    Who are the elect/status of spiritual children of the kingdom vs genetic children

    This thread is not for dicussion of the Trinity, the Rapture, Modelism, Hell, or the Millennium except for how it might pertain to race/ethnicity. If you can't discuss without flaming and/or contempt, please stay the heck off my thread.

    I'll begin by addressing Smyrna's comment from another thread where it did not quite fit the topic:

    That charge has been floated and dealt with here before. First of all, it;s based in an inaccurate claim about what Murray teaches. He does not teach the Flood was brought upon earth because the races intermixed. He also has very strong words against those who would persecute people of mixed race heritage, while at the same time even though I've never heard him say it, I wouldn't think it was racism if he taught strongly against mixed marriages, because this isn't racist in and of itself.
    He most certainly does teach that in part. While his main focus is interbreeding between daughters of Adam and offspring of fallen angels, he also "reminds" us that where the races are concerned, God likes things to "stay as they are" and has often compared the offspring of racial mixing to hybrids and mules.

    Genesis, Chapter II, Arnold Murray:

    "Gen. 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    Now wait a minute. Back in the 6th day He made male and female at the same time for man, humanity. Now here we have this special man. Why cant we go back and get one of those females? Well because it wouldn't be of Adam, the man. So what is He going to do? Now think, keep with me here.

    Gen. 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    Now wait a minute. Way back in the other days God created the beasts of the field, the animals, the fowls, and Adam, the man, wasn't even created yet. And here He creates more and brings them to him and lets him name them. What's going on here? Well, if you're going to till the ground don't you think you need domestic animals to do that with? So God created other animals, domestic animals that Adam could use to tend. Horses- He sure didn't create any mules because a mule is a hybrid and we won't go there. It's against Gods design. The donkey He did. And all the farm animals that Adam would need, and He let Adam even name them. Got it? Keep your chronological order in affect. Rightly dividing the Word of God where you gain correct knowledge to understand the Word of our Father.

  • #2
    Originally posted by stage director View Post
    I'm going to heed Josh's admonishment to stick to the topic by starting another thread. This thread is for dicussion of the following SC doctrines, and any doctrine that closely relates to them:

    Jews vs Kenites/Serpent seed

    The races/Race mixing

    6th day man vs 8th day man

    World that was/Three world ages according to races/nations

    Who are the elect/status of spiritual children of the kingdom vs genetic children

    This thread is not for dicussion of the Trinity, the Rapture, Modelism, Hell, or the Millennium except for how it might pertain to race/ethnicity. If you can't discuss without flaming and/or contempt, please stay the heck off my thread.

    I'll begin by addressing Smyrna's comment from another thread where it did not quite fit the topic:



    He most certainly does teach that in part. While his main focus is interbreeding between daughters of Adam and offspring of fallen angels, he also "reminds" us that where the races are concerned, God likes things to "stay as they are" and has often compared the offspring of racial mixing to hybrids and mules.

    Genesis, Chapter II, Arnold Murray:

    "Gen. 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    Now wait a minute. Back in the 6th day He made male and female at the same time for man, humanity. Now here we have this special man. Why cant we go back and get one of those females? Well because it wouldn't be of Adam, the man. So what is He going to do? Now think, keep with me here.

    Gen. 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    Now wait a minute. Way back in the other days God created the beasts of the field, the animals, the fowls, and Adam, the man, wasn't even created yet. And here He creates more and brings them to him and lets him name them. What's going on here? Well, if you're going to till the ground don't you think you need domestic animals to do that with? So God created other animals, domestic animals that Adam could use to tend. Horses- He sure didn't create any mules because a mule is a hybrid and we won't go there. It's against Gods design. The donkey He did. And all the farm animals that Adam would need, and He let Adam even name them. Got it? Keep your chronological order in affect. Rightly dividing the Word of God where you gain correct knowledge to understand the Word of our Father.
    Even if that were true, antisemitism and racism isn't part of what he's teaching. He may or may not believe that race mixing is Biblically wrong, but that is not relevant to what otherwise is just an interpretation that God intended the races to remain separate from each other. After all, it is God himself that even alluded to such in Deuteronomy:

    KJV Deuteronomy 7:6

    For you are a holy people unto the LORD your God: the LORD your God has chosen you to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

    That doesn't sound like he had any plans to mix them up with anyone, and just in case Stage Director claims I am not interpreting the words right, we only need to look at the attitude exemplified by one modern Jewish Commentator:

    "It will not come as a surprise if I suggest that we Jews are a peculiar people. For all the talk of escalating assimilation, we remain, in important respects, quite different from most other Americans."

    The writer goes on to pretty much brag these peculiar people are more charitable, successful, prosperous and educated than the rest of the general population (known as "Goyim" or "Goys" in the Jewish community).


    Read more: http://forward.com/articles/140667/#ixzz1gFaaRI7s

    And though one may see this as Jewish supremacy on their part, it may be just pride in their race, and they do consider themselves a different race, other than white, even though they are by all indications Caucasian.

    But back to the main point, I see no hatred towards the Jews being taught by Murray, and neither does the ADL or SPLC, both of whom have done research on the SC ministry. I strongly suspect they have much more expertise than one sole critic that merely reads the misinformed opinions of those she agrees with.



    Comment


    • #3
      How Detractors Twist Murray's Teachings Into An Anti-Semitic Message

      Murray's teaching on the Kenites is emphasized by his insistence they are the descendants of Cain, the son of an unholy pairing between Eve and Satan. In Gn. 3:15, God points out the separation of the two brothers and their descendants and declares their will be mutual hatred (enmity) between the two. Ancient Jewish texts such as the Targums do well in explaining that the line of Cain, and his nature and destiny is summed up by the Jewish Encyclopedia:

      "Cain was also viewed as a type of utter perverseness, an offspring of Satan (Pirḳe R. El. xxi.), "a son of wrath" (Apoc. Mosis, 3), a lawless rebel who said, "There is neither a divine judgment nor a judge" (Midr. Leḳaḥ Ṭob and Targ. Yer. to Gen. iv. 8), whose words of repentance were insincere (Sanh. 101b; Tan.), whose fleeing from God was a denial of His omnipresence (Gen. R. xxii.), and whose punishment was of an extraordinary character: for every hundred years of the seven hundred years he was to live was to inflict another punishment upon him; and all his generations must be exterminated (Test. Patr., Benjamin, 7, according to Gen. iv. 24; Enoch, xxii, 7). For him and his race shall ever be "the desire of the spirit of sin" (Gen. R. xx., after Gen. iv. 7). He is the first of those who have no share in the world to come (Ab. R. N. xli., ed. Schechter, p. 133)."

      http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3904-cain

      The Kenites, therefore, were a constant negative influence on the peoples of the Adamic bloodline, eventually infiltrating the Jewish priesthood and causing rejection and the death of Christ. However, the ultimate victory of Christ over satan is revealed beginning in the Old Testament, and its fruition explained in the NT, and no wiser choice could have been made to illustrate this victory than through the writings and ministry of Paul, a converted Pharisee, converted by Epiphany on the road to Damascus.

      Detractors however abuse these teachings and complain that persecution of the Jews is a result of exhibiting the relationship between the Kenites and the Jews. The problem with their criticism is they must ignore or downplay the facts which Murray and the students of the SC do not: recognition that all are offered salvation through Christ, even the Kenites. That Jesus expressly forbids any malice be brought upon the Kenites, adding that they are too potentially indistinguishable to risk harming true Judah by openly persecuting them. (See the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, as well as the Parable of the Figtree) and to wait for the angels to gather them all up for their ultimate destruction at the end of the age.(see harvest, at the end of the Parable of Wheat and tares)

      This and many other teachings through the Bible the detractors ignore, choosing to cherry pick,isolate from context, and then spin their own version of what Murray teaches into an a treatise promoting antisemitism, and proceed to treat their invention as if it is genuine Murray.

      Were this game the detractors play my own invention created to discredit them, they would have convinced the ADL or SPLC long ago the SC is not suitable for TV, and there would have been more than just one complaint by a now absorbed (by AT & T)TV media company that was merely part of an array made to bolster their case for appealing to the FCC to allow more diverse programming, which they lost, without the FCC paying any particular attention to their specific charge against the SC.

      Such a weak attempt to use that case by Casey Sanchez in his article published by SPLC speaks to his ultimate failure to convince the SPLC to list the SC among their list of hate groups. It bears noting that the SPLC has a notorious reputation for trumping up charges against groups they ultimately judge and list as hate groups, that were they to impose their own qualifiers for such designation upon their own organization, the SPLC itself would be designated as a hate group! (A quick Internet research exercise will reveal this to be a fact)

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't think Murray's teachings, 90% of which is line by line verse by verse readings of the Bible itself, is antisemitic. I've been listening to him for more than twenty years, I watch an average of 15 hours per week of his programming, including his Q & A session, and I don't hear him say anything about Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews, I've never heard him say we should hate anyone. Though you may not as you stated wish to wade through thousands of posts, I suggest you do an Internet research exercise to gauge the pro and con opinions of Murray. You'll find not only much support for him, but very few commentaries about him being racist or antisemitic.

        One point I always make when defending such charges is that if he was antisemitic and racist, he'd have no problem expressing it outside network and cable TV. The Internet has come a very long way in a very short time since the 90's. The Internet is wide open, you can express your opinion about anybody and anything.

        The SC could save millions in TV broadcasting fees and preach antisemitism to their heart's content. But they do not. One thing I do which hopefully makes me a good debater is to try and build an argument against my own views. I find that were I to charge Murray with antisemitism, I'd take issue with his lecture on Esther, the Book he refuses to cover on TV, deeming it: "too controversial." However, I don't think he refuses to teach it because it has an antisemitic message.

        I think he has a fear people will take it as such. I think he could cause a great deal of understanding to be transferred to his viewer if he simply explains there are Jews that do not place the Talmud above Scripture itself, and I'd love it if he actually took the steps to bring on a guest from the Jewish community to explain the passages Talmud critics make about their treatment of Jesus, Mary and Talmud declarations of how to treat gentiles different than Jews in matters of law favoring the Jews.

        It's my opinion the Jews bring much of the persecution they get because they do not make enough effort to explain those parts of the Talmud in a way that would ease tension among Christians, Jews, and even other Jews that do not place the Talmud in such high order..

        One more point about those who accuse Murray of antisemitism is he often refers to "Our brother Judah" i.e. as is taught by Murray in Jesus' Parable of the Fig Tree.

        For further study, I recommend a SC student's coverage of the Parable, and he doesn't just use Murray as study aids:

        Bible & Commentary
        King James Version (KJV)
        The Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
        Notes from Arnold Murray
        The Companion Bible
        Clarke- Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
        Gill- John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
        Barnes- Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

        http://godslettertous.home.comcast.n...20Tree%201.htm


        http://godslettertous.home.comcast.n...20Tree%202.htm

        And this is the message I get from the SC. It's not antisemitic.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally Posted by easeltine http://factnet.org/vbforum/images/bu...post-right.png "But a 1997 complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcast media, argued otherwise. Shepherd's Chapel's broadcasts were one of the subjects of a complaint by former media company MediaOne (now part of AT&T) against Georgia's WNGM-TV in a dispute over market access. MediaOne alleged that "Shepherd's Chapel," then carried on WNGM-TV, "has purveyed racist dogma," citing claims by the program on Nov. 13 and 15, 1996, that "not all races can come from Adam and Eve," that "God created different races … and that's the way he wanted us to stay," and that the Biblical flood "was to destroy those [of different races] who had intermixed.""

          http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...ecret-identity

          Smyrna's Response:

          That charge has been floated and dealt with here before. First of all, it's based in an inaccurate claim about what Murray teaches. He does not teach the Flood was brought upon earth because the races intermixed. He also has very strong words against those who would persecute people of mixed race heritage, while at the same time even though I've never heard him say it, I wouldn't think it was racism if he taught strongly against mixed marriages, because this isn't racist in and of itself.

          If you take an honest view of history and culture, there is far more reason for cultural and racial heritage based upon racial pride rather than hatred of other races. Due to our current political climate, it is an easily rendered charge to accuse your political foes if one expresses pride of their race if they are white, while other races are cheered on if they express racial pride. For instance, we don't hear anyone calling the NAACP racist, but the NAAWP is considered a racist organization, even though it basically demands the same for white people as is demanded by the NAACP for colored people:


          "The group advocates
          white separatism as opposed to white supremacy...slogan: "Equal Rights For All — Special Privileges For None." The slogan was presumably taken from the seventh of the Ocala Demands of the United States Populist (or People's) Party of 1890.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...f_White_People

          It bears noting that even though the SPLC reports this complaint by Media One**** via an article by amatuer reporter Casey Sanchez the very same article notes quotes for the openly racist and antisemitic website Stormfront:

          "Another poster going by the handle "Artemis Clydefrog" stated: "I've been studying with the Chapel for about 15 years. He's not C.I. [Christian Identity], but he does teach the 'Serpent's Seed.'" "[Murray] believes that blacks are exactly the same as Whites in the eyes of God," said Stormfront poster "LeBrune" with evident disapproval. "Just because he teaches about the "Serpent's Seed," don't think for a moment that he is a White Nationalist, promotes Christian Identity, White Separation, or even White Preservation."

          *** It should be noted that the article does not mention the result of that complaint. Anyone can level a complaint, it's how the complaint was handled which is a major part of the story, and it's not there.

          What also isn't mentioned is the Mediaone complaint against the SC was motivated by a larger dispute involving their control of programming, and other complaints include:

          MediaOne also cites the November 15, 1996 broadcast of "Just for Kids," which stated that adding chocolate chips, marshmallow cream, and jelly to a peanut butter sandwich would make it more nutritious, as would adding popcorn and ice cream. Also, MediaOne also notes that WNGM-TV's public affairs program-length commercials "A Closer Look" frequently use Mr. Trudeau as an interviewer, and have promoted, among other products, a filtration system to remove "poison fluoride" from tap water and an "ozone treatment" to cure AIDS.

          MEDIAONE"S overall complaint was DENIED by the FCC.

          http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Ca...7/da971776.txt

          To close let me mention again, the SPLC does NOT list the SC among racist or antisemitic groups.


          Comment


          • #6
            Stage:

            Let me pick this bone with you.

            You brought up Adam naming the animals.

            There are literally thousands and thousands if not millions and millions of different animals, birds, fish, and creepy things on earth.

            Are there any who are prepared to tell me that God and Adam sat down one sunny afternoon and then for the next 5000 years God had to sit there while Adam tried to figure out a name for each and everyone of these creatures ????

            Obviously God brought before Adam the domestic creatures one and all.
            Adam then proceeded to name them.

            Stage this is all fine and jim dandy.....

            Though sadly when you try to make a connection between this and Adam going back to get one of those other females. (6th day)

            The sole precipice of your conundrum comes crashing down upon you.

            The donkey is not the key to your success, if that's what you've got up your sleeve.... He He He !!!

            Dob!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Smyrna;

              When I logged on I saw this page that had just been started by Stage.

              I noticed that there wasn't a single comment one..

              As I typed out my post.

              You were busy cutting and pasting 4 post's in a row....

              So when I hit the send button you can imagine my surprise to then witness the fastest typing human on earth...

              Your starting to remind me of one of my other friends whom I used to get down on for constantly cutting and pasting.....

              Do you remember his name ???

              I'll give you a hint !!

              It starts with a "J" or sometimes with a "F"

              Dob!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Josh125:

                Do notice the ebb's and tides in the flows of Biblical debates....

                I ask ???

                Do you honestly think you can control it ??

                I think not !!!!

                Dob!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  God himself commanded us not to marry unside our faith. Good example is Solomon and his eight hundred wives and concumbines. Reason being is these wives of solomon sacrificed there children due to there religious beliefs. Ruth was a foreign wife but approved by God and the tribe because she believed in God.

                  As far as creation story in chapter 1 male and female, it is a statement God created both, they were not made by some other means. How they were made is in chapter two of Genesis. And in truth we gone over this before. However eve sinned and ate of the forbidden fruit, yet that did not separate adam and eve from being husband and wife, however you think adam would of kicked eve to the curb for a time, but scripture does not allude to that. However it implies they had sex and she got pregnant.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Science would prove, and Murray isn't a scientist but he is well read and were he to be comparing mixing the races of humans to crossing species in animals, he knows, as he is a farmer, that Mules cannot have offspring. So to compare maybe a back woman and white man as the same as a horse and donkey doesn't work. Now if he actually said that in the ancient lecture Stage Director appears to be quoting from, number one it still doesn't prove at all he teaches racism, i.e to hate other races.

                    Secondly, believing the races should not mix for the purpose of having children is only regarded as racist buy those wishing to use that attitude as a weapon. Because there can be cultural reasons for staying within one's race for marriage and childbearing. A look at societies around the world, both modern and moving back through history reveals that geography, religion, politics, etc. all have been among the variety of reasons for taboos against race mixing.

                    I venture to guess racism is among the least of the reasons given.

                    I find it amusing Stage Director could quote Murray's lecture, and characterize it as him preaching hatred, when his reasoning behind what the Word of God states is totally irrelevant to racism.It only supports the idea that God, and not man, declared a natural order.

                    On a deeper level, it may also be speaking to a later event, that of the unholy seduction of Eve by satan (following Murray's theology) and later the seduction of women by the fallen angels. Later in the Law, there was also prohibitions against race mixing, and laws prohibiting such are based mostly on racial pride which includes the preservation of a particular race rather than racism.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

                    I see nothing in Murry's Biblical teachings that are messages of hatred toward the races, and as we've visited this topic so many times in the past, I accuse Stage Director of being dishonest by never once addressing these alternative views as having validity, even while she cannot come up with one sentence by Murray that would express his desire to teaches racial hatred towards non-whites.

                    She also deliberately ignores Murray's denial he teaches racism in his Answer to critics on the SC site:

                    Racism

                    To say that I teach racism or practice racism is another outright lie. We have people of all races that attend and study with the Shepherd's Chapel. It is very simple to prove this statement. We televise our annual Passover meetings including video interviews of many of the thousands who attend. Order a video tape of any of these interviews and you will see people of all races which effectively documents the falseness of any charges that I teach racism (a sample of Passover Interviews is also offered at the end of this document). God's Word directly teaches that our Heavenly Father created all the races and that it was good, (Genesis 1:27-28, 31). People of all nations and races shall be in the Temple of the Lord throughout eternity (Revelation 21:22-27).

                    http://shepherdschapel.com/critics.htm
                    Last edited by smyrna; 12-11-2011, 07:09 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Dobman,

                      You are once again going against Josh's wishes and disrupting the flow here. he himself said that topics unrelated to the topics being discussed at hand would either be deleted or moved to an appropriate thread.

                      If you think I am in violation of anything here, please report it to Josh, and if I were you, I wouldn't keep taunting like you are either, because that is not a topic here as well. (ref. your post #8)

                      In fact, I'm reporting that right now.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Example of inter racial marriage in the Bible, would be Ethiopian that married Moses, Miriam had a problem with and got leprosy.

                        Numbers 12:1-16 KJV
                        (1) And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
                        (2) And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.
                        (3) (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)
                        (4) And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
                        (5) And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.
                        (6) And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
                        (7) My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
                        (8) With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
                        (9) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
                        (10) And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.
                        (11) And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.
                        (12) Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.
                        (13) And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.
                        (14) And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.
                        (15) And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.
                        (16) And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Turtle,

                          Just because someone is from Ethiopia doesn't mean they're black. St. Augustine was Afircan, and no one is positive what race he was:

                          http://www.askacatholic.com/_webpost...arkSkinned.cfm

                          Thanks for the digression, now can we get back to whether or not the SC is racist and/or antisemitic?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How Detractors Twist Murray's Teachings Into An Anti-Semitic Message
                            This is flaming. Seriously, if you can't be a part of this thread without the snide comments then go back to some other one.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              St Augustine was from Roman ruled Africa, an area that is now Algeria. His childhood language was Latin and it's thought that he descended from Berbers and Latins, and possibly Phoenicians.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X