Why I think SC doctrine is racist/anti-semite

[stage director]

Hi, Josh: I have very little patience where Smyrna is concerned because of his long history of derailing threads into flame fests. For someone like Dob, or even Kestrel, that comment would be worthy of overlooking, but experience says that Smyrna's trying to work his contempt into the conversation. I've spent five years too many sitting through his debate tactics. So while I'll defer to your opinion, I ask that you give him a very short leash on this thread. I'd like to discuss this subject in full, once and for all, but I'm not going to do it here if he continues in typical mode. Btw, if I'd labelled this thread, say: "Why SC students blindly follow Murray" ... it may have been my assessment, but it would have served no purpose other than to guarantee a hostile discussion. Additionally, I don't twist Murray's teachings, even if someone else believes I fail to understand them. So that was a flame. I'm not so dense as to not recognize animosity when it's directed at me, even when it's subtle and geared to test the waters.

[smyrna]

"Additionally, I don't twist Murray's teachings, even if someone else believes I fail to understand them. So that was a flame. I'm not so dense as to not recognize animosity when it's directed at me, even when it's subtle and geared to test the waters."- Stage Director

I confess I didn't use twist in my latest post to the Finally, a Rational... thread #1419 where I have documented the compound lie which shows Stage Director not only lying about what Murray teaches, but compounding that lie by changing her story.

In response to the remainder of her comments above, I must take issue with it, as she is basing her complaint on speculation that I cannot be disciplined enough to maintain the decorum here from my end to the moderator's satisfaction:

"I have very little patience where Smyrna is concerned because of his long history of derailing threads into flame fests. For someone like Dob, or even Kestrel, that comment would be worthy of overlooking, but experience says that Smyrna's trying to work his contempt into the conversation."

Let me quote Josh here: "I would ask that the two of you refrain from further antagonistic exchanges and focus on this one issue until there is some sort of resolution, even if it’s an agreement to disagree. After that, we can move on to another point of contention, of which there are apparently many. "

I feel that by her message to you Josh, she is being antagonistic and trying to drag me into an antagonistic exchange.

Her message includes an allegation "....experience says that Smyrna's trying to work his contempt into the conversation.' , that she is speculating speaks to her antagonistic approach, and her bias towards me made clear through this comments:

"For someone like Dob, or even Kestrel, that comment*** would be worthy of overlooking, but experience says that Smyrna's trying to work his contempt into the conversation."

As if Dob or Kestrel don't and haven't ever shown contempt for the detractor's allegations?

I consider the title to my earlier post: "“How Detractors Twist Murray’s Teachings Into An Anti-Semitic Message” to be based upon facts, facts which I outlined in the post which was so titled.

***Apparently referring to the title of one of my posts "“How Detractors Twist Murray’s Teachings Into An Anti-Semitic Message”

That Stage Director is still disputing Josh's opinion speaks volumes of her contentious position, perhaps she has contempt
for your decision, Josh?

[Josh2]

Stage Director, as far as I can see Smyrna hasn’t attacked you personally. His comments seem to have been directed at “detractors” in general, those who he thinks are engaged in critically belittling and discrediting his beliefs. If he insulted you directly with inflammatory remarks, that would be different. I can’t label comments aimed at “detractors” in general “flaming.”

The same goes for Turtle’s opinion that Smyrna’s comment concerning Ethiopia, St. Augustine, and the color of their skin is “flaming” rhetoric. None of this fits into the category of an internet forum flame IMO.

Though I appreciate your point of view and concerns, in these particular examples I disagree with your assessment.

[smyrna]

As Josh noted. I did lay out my titled position and as usual presented examples. So for the sake of giving my opponents a fair opportunity to respond, I am going to wait until they do so until I continue to present my case.

[Josh2]

Smyrna, let’s just try to get back to debating the premise of Stage Director’s thread, why she thinks that Shepherds Chapel doctrine is racist and anti-Semitic instead of looking for “contempt” where there isn’t any. I disagreed with her about what is a “flame,” she is of the opinion that you have a history of “derailing threads into flame fests,” and now each of you have had your say. This mutual hunt for reasons to complain about each other is a diversion. Get back on topic please.

[turtle]

Stage Director, as far as I can see Smyrna hasn’t attacked you personally. His comments seem to have been directed at “detractors” in general, those who he thinks are engaged in critically belittling and discrediting his beliefs. If he insulted you directly with inflammatory remarks, that would be different. I can’t label comments aimed at “detractors” in general “flaming.”

The same goes for Turtle’s opinion that Smyrna’s comment concerning Ethiopia, St. Augustine, and the color of their skin is “flaming” rhetoric. None of this fits into the category of an internet forum flame IMO.

Though I appreciate your point of view and concerns, in these particular examples I disagree with your assessment.

Josh you have a lot to learn about being moderator first of all you take smyrna word without evening to bother to read my post. Second easeltine was the one that called the ethiopian black and states reasons for his opinion because of whtie leopsy. hird Josh You faill to take note I never refered to ethiopian being any color. The fact is joshua you continue to rate this I will go to the head administor with no problem. Get your facts straight so you do not cause flaming. As moderator your job is to control the argument to keep people from hitting each other through the screen. Fact is josh, you said you did not have time to do thi, well then get off the board, none of us had any trouble with discussion but smyrna, you has a problem of ffaming and smacking people by lying. And I say this to smyrna face for easeltine, dob, and others. I will go administrator ifyou do my post that way again without examining facts.


One more thing josh I was asked by administrator to be here, so you better talk to the administor and not go always by the tattle tail on the board who does not follow rules.

[turtle]

The "Ethiopian" woman would have been from Ham, the son of Noah. The woman would probably have been black, and the reason for the objection by Miriam and Aaron. The attitude of Miriam and Arron represents the ideas Shepherds Chapel and Arnold Murray concerning mixed marriages.

The comment seems to indicate that it was acceptable if the Ethiopian woman had white skin, but if the skin was black/dark than that would be a mixed marriage. I think the comment does reflect the ideas of Shepherds Chapel, Arnold Murray, and still many people in the U.S. This idea does show racism on the part of SC.

This is a legitimate Scriptural case of an inter-racial marriage.

First of all Adam was red skinned Adam means red, second of all one thing you forget was noah curse on cannan was he was a servan, though family line would settle in area that seem to be predominate black does not make the skin at the time of noah black. So this is not even worth debating unless you can prove at the time of the flood skin coloring had changed.

By the way this goes to stage directors comments as well. According to history notable skin coloring did not happen until the famine at the time of exile of babylonia, if had occurred before it was not mentioned. Only dna evidence could prove otherwise.

[theadmin]

So I am coming to you... About me asking you to be here...please refresh my memory... I don't recall any conversation saying this unles it was a simple thanks for pointing out spam to me and that I need all the eyes I can get for that purpose.

Now you Turtle are the one who needs to learn about how you speak to a moderator. I appointed Josh and gave him the authority to moderate and to ban folks if necessary. Now you don't go into a court and start telling the judge what he needs to do and that he needs more to learn. That is one sure way to get thrown into jail. Here it would be a simple vacation from the board until you learned how to operate by our rules.

I concur with Josh and didn't see anything that could be considered a flame. But your post to Josh is close to one but actually it is outright disrespectful and undermining Josh's authority which I gave him and so you are actually attacking my supervision of my moderators. Are you sure you want to do that?

From now on if you have problems with Josh's moderation then you need to send him a "Private Message" and not make yourself a public spectacle. If you don't like what Josh tells you then you can PM me and I will speak to both of you but I will tell you this right now. I will always be leaning towards my moderators because I do not micro-manage them and trust their wisdom and decisions and will back them up wholeheartedly.

So Turtle, stop and think before you answer this post and be sure you say what you really want to say...

Sincerely and seriously, Capt Frank Furillo (aka Mr FACTNet)

Josh you have a lot to learn about being moderator first of all you take smyrna word without evening to bother to read my post. Second easeltine was the one that called the ethiopian black and states reasons for his opinion because of whtie leopsy. hird Josh You faill to take note I never refered to ethiopian being any color. The fact is joshua you continue to rate this I will go to the head administor with no problem. Get your facts straight so you do not cause flaming. As moderator your job is to control the argument to keep people from hitting each other through the screen. Fact is josh, you said you did not have time to do thi, well then get off the board, none of us had any trouble with discussion but smyrna, you has a problem of ffaming and smacking people by lying. And I say this to smyrna face for easeltine, dob, and others. I will go administrator ifyou do my post that way again without examining facts.


One more thing josh I was asked by administrator to be here, so you better talk to the administor and not go always by the tattle tail on the board who does not follow rules.

[smyrna]

The post was a duplicate I didn't intend to post, only to correct typos, content deleted.

[smyrna]

I have made many points in my posts about the allegation Murray teaches an antisemitic message, and I believe I have shown how detractors spin what Murray says into an antisemitic message. I have given examples, I have challenged why he has no reason to hide a racist or antisemitic message if he chose to preach one.

In order to get the debate rolling again as Josh suggested, here are my points in a list format, which I ask my opponents to please address in a similar direct manner:

Why doesn't the SPLC or ADL list the SC on any of their hate group or lists of antisemitic/racist groups?

As there are so many openly racist and antisemitic groups both on the Internet as well as on select local TV stations in certain markets, why would the Murray's as well as Chapel students not openly profess racist and antisemitic sentiments?

Why has the SC if, it was actually teaching an antisemitic and racist message, somehow escaped scrutiny by major media organizations for more than twenty years, and has actually grown considerably.

In the SC's growth, it now has its own TV network on Direct TV, ch. 224 . Has any of the detractors here made a formal complaint to that network or Direct TV, and if not why not?

If you were to complain to Direct TV and the owner of ch. 224 if it is separate from Direct TV, would you provide a list of allegations here in this forum, and follow up by publishing any and all replies by those entities?

Why have detractors in the past used quotes from Stormfront, an openly racist organization in which SF forum members supported the SC, as "proof" of the SC racism and anti-semitism, while at the same time, when quotes were presented that show racist and antisemitic SF members that aired their disapproval with the SC for allowing non-whites into their Church, even hiring non-whites to work in the SC's bookshop, no longer being part of the CI movement, dismissed with comments such as "why would anyone trust what a racist says to another racist."?

If the SC's alleged racism is such an issue to SC detractors here at FactNet, why has repeated efforts to get them to speak out about several racist remarks by one of their fellow detractors go unchallenged?

I will withhold further questions to give my opponents an opportunity for a rebuttal and respond to these questions.

[turtle]

So I am coming to you... About me asking you to be here...please refresh my memory... I don't recall any conversation saying this unles it was a simple thanks for pointing out spam to me and that I need all the eyes I can get for that purpose.

Now you Turtle are the one who needs to learn about how you speak to a moderator. I appointed Josh and gave him the authority to moderate and to ban folks if necessary. Now you don't go into a court and start telling the judge what he needs to do and that he needs more to learn. That is one sure way to get thrown into jail. Here it would be a simple vacation from the board until you learned how to operate by our rules.

I concur with Josh and didn't see anything that could be considered a flame. But your post to Josh is close to one but actually it is outright disrespectful and undermining Josh's authority which I gave him and so you are actually attacking my supervision of my moderators. Are you sure you want to do that?

From now on if you have problems with Josh's moderation then you need to send him a "Private Message" and not make yourself a public spectacle. If you don't like what Josh tells you then you can PM me and I will speak to both of you but I will tell you this right now. I will always be leaning towards my moderators because I do not micro-manage them and trust their wisdom and decisions and will back them up wholeheartedly.

So Turtle, stop and think before you answer this post and be sure you say what you really want to say...

Sincerely and seriously, Capt Frank Furillo (aka Mr FACTNet)

First of all I don't believe you are frank and second of all I wrote you wehn you wrote me that if you wanted me on the board, I would come back. Second the reason I don't believe you are frank is because you never had any trouble using your name and never used the name admin. Third, in rule of business you fail as well to read all that was said. Second I have had death threats on your board, I amking you aware of it and I take legal action against you. There is enough proof. Second I remain hoping to help someone with truth. But because of your childish behavior of not looking to facts I will remove myself permanently so celebrate.

[fatherofaking]

[fatherofaking]

Another One Bites the Dust

[jeff_franklin]

Just dropping by to wish all and I do mean all a Merry Christmas!!!

Might drop back later after everyone else has expressed why they

believe Arnold Murray and Shepherds Chapel dogma are racist and

antisemitic. I know that he and it all is. Merry Christmas everyone!

[theadmin]

Dear Turtle...

First: I have NEVER wrote anyone asking them to come back to the board( What? were you banned or you left on your own?)

Second: If you ever received a private message from me or a post on the board it would say "Admin" just to assure you I was who I claimed to be. No one else can imitate that heading. So needless to say if you did receive anything saying that I was Capt Furlillo without the "Admin" title on it then you were being scammed.

and thirdly: I sometimes tack on (aka Mt FACTNet) to my signature for those who don't know me or dealt with the previous "Admin" who went by "Mr FACTNet" and who's email address I took over at mrfactnet@gmail.com

You are the one who has proven their "childishness" (your words) with the fact that after saying "I will remove myself permanently so celebrate" continued to post multiple times as if nothing was just said. FYI there has never been any death threats written or implied towards you or anyone on this board.

Due to your disrespect of the moderator and myself you now have lost your privilege to post here for one month. At that time you may come back and post but if you come back with more flames towards me or Josh 125 or threats against FACTNet you will be permanently banned from posting here.

PS I suggest you get a spell checker for your browser. People will take you more seriously. Here is a good one for Internet Explorer http://www.iespell.com/ Firefox has one already built in... http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/... spell checker


Sincerely and seriously Capt Frank Furillo

First of all I don't believe you are frank and second of all I wrote you wehn you wrote me that if you wanted me on the board, I would come back. Second the reason I don't believe you are frank is because you never had any trouble using your name and never used the name admin. Third, in rule of business you fail as well to read all that was said. Second I have had death threats on your board, I amking you aware of it and I take legal action against you. There is enough proof. Second I remain hoping to help someone with truth. But because of your childish behavior of not looking to facts I will remove myself permanently so celebrate.

[easeltine]

My poor friend was pushed over the edge, and finally lost it.

Debates can get very rude. That is the nature of them.

[stage director]

First of all Adam was red skinned Adam means red

Murray makes the claim that the Adam, as opposed to an earlier supposed creation of the ethnic peoples, was caucasian, insisting the word "Adam" means "red" and he "proves" this by claiming only white folks blush.

In reality, all mankind was called Adam. The word Adam means human or mankind. The possibility that it could have stemmed from a term meaning "ruddy" is an Arab one, and they only considered there two races, one black; all others. They, however, believed both of these races came from the same common ancestor, ie. Adam.

[Kestrel]

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.

---

It appears that some failed to do their homework on "metaphors" and "similes". Worse yet, the context of PM's reference is further misrepresented in an attempt to fabricate some racial bias that is coded in his messaging.

A very deliberate attack, especially after showing first hand knowledge of the lectures!

Any reference that is made to equines in conjunction with the topic of races is simply to demonstrate that even nature itself doesn't readily allow for all hybrids (read up on how mules and donkeys are born- it takes some breeding effort (i.e., NOT NATURAL).

PM has also used an excellent example on several occassions relating to horticulture when speaking about hybridization. I know from personal experience of what occurs when a cucumber and cantalope are crossed. The result is something that is hard as a rock, looks funky, and tastes so disqusting that it's impossible to imagine.

Further to the point, let's get this out in the open. I assume that several of the talking points that have been established for this thread by it's creator can be addressed simultaneously, and in conjunction with one another to unpack so key elements. It shouldn't be too confusing.

Let's start from the beginning. The very Beginning: The First Earth Age (not important to agree at this point). In this Age, a rebellion occurred which was initiated by Lucifer. Many souls were deceived at that time, many stood their ground. Father did not want to destroy the disobedient children, yet.

He created this 2nd Age to give all souls a chance to stand against Satan, and come to the full knowledge of His Plan. Some souls proved themselves already in the First Age, and are therefore referenced throughout Scripture as the "remnant" and "Elect". They are preordained because Father KNOWS that He can trust them from the First Age, and they have been given certain responsibilities to WAR against Satan according to the Spirit's direction.

What this has to do with race is the following, and it will be provacative to many. So be it!!

The Elect are preordained, and therefore are already Saved from "both deaths". Like it or lump it. We full well know there is enough Verse to substantiate this beyond debate. Predestination is a fact according to Father Himself. The Elect come from ALL races, and God placed them EXACTLY where He needs them. Furthermore, he has "staged" his "peculiar children", the offspring of Jacob into the world as promised. This happened through the scattering of the Tribes.

Other souls from the First Age performed more or less effectively (it must be concluded) against Satan. They have complete free will because they are in peril of both the first and second death still. Mortal means "libel to die".

(All this will have a chance to be elaborated on, if this thread is serious about resolution)

So God has placed His warriors into position thoughout this Age in preperation for that Final Day. If Satan has his way, he would have destroyed the "seed line" to prevent Messiah from accomplishing His Purpose of defeating death. (This would have prevented the first prophecy of the Bible from being fulfilled concerning the serpent's head.) God is in charge. Period.

He needed to ensure that a race could be kept pure to bring forth Christ to save EVERYONE. Genetic purity was mandated for the lineage to suceed. No man judges, and we do not play God by saying that all souls born to the 12 Tribes are Elect. In fact, far from it. However, there is a Body that exists, and all the members are correctly placed. So the Lord controls exactly what soul is placed in what body, for past actions that soul had conducted during Satan's rebellion in the First Age.

Creation is always the best example. We have nothing but a beautiful, as well as intensely diverse, world to teach us. Why would God create a world to have it's diversity run down into a homogeneous, vanilla melting pot? Imagine the consequence on culture, nature, health? Diversity, even from the perspective of an Evolutionist, is critical.

Let it be clear that "mamzars" are in no way shut out of Heaven, regardless of what some have purported in the past. They are just as much a part of Father's Creation as the Elect. Clearly, Romans 8 qualifies the ways in which Father gives us Gifts, and makes this point.

It's part of proving Satan a liar.

If the foot was the ear, then we couldn't walk or hear. Why not let God's children be equally organized within The Body?

All this said, I make this disclaimer: Love overcomes ALL. That's why we are here, lest we should forget our purpose for existing in the first place.

This post turned out long, I opened several cans of worms if my job has been done correctly, I have a bowl of chocolate mint ice cream calling my name, and it's to late for me to go back and even attempt to edit this. I left too many thoughts unfinished, but then:

That's when I know I can count on the detractors the most.

I'll check for typos out of courtesy. This isn't just some slouch rag we run.

Nice thread by the way. Whoever picked out these curtains did a great job!

Kestrel

[Kestrel]

Murray makes the claim that the Adam as opposed to an earlier supposed creation of the ethnic peoples, was caucasian, insisting the word "Adam" means "red" and he "proves" this by claiming only white folks blush.

PM HAS NEVER COMMENTED THAT "ONLY WHITE PEOPLE BLUSH". Listen more carefully next time.

I heard him refute this same charge only last weak during the Q/A session. It's "Caucasian" as he commented to the letter.

There are MANY shades of the race, just as ALL the others. This becomes some kind of reversed racism I'm thinking. LOL!

IMHO, it might show a bias of the listener to make such a distinction. It is a very important distinction- at that.

[Kestrel]

Just think- All this, and I only had time to read 2 posts. Somebody got lucky.

Maybe more reading and less typing next time, before I get into trouble.

Ya, right!