New Low For FactNet's Moderator: Intimidation

A few days ago, out of the blue, I received this messages from the atheist board troll Will/Dodge using his Josh125 moderator account at FactNet:

 03-26-2012 01:40 PM

Josh125 

Moderator

Join Date

Jan 2006

Posts

122

 Banning

The mistake you’re making is not knowing that I can’t ban anyone, I don’t have the tools to do that. As a moderator, the only thing I can do is make suggestions to Mr. Factnet; who can either agree or not. Everything has to go through him. So; if you have a complaint about the way the moderation is going, you need to talk with him, not me. I’m sure he would tell you exactly the way it is in no uncertain terms.

I have no idea what compelled him, but this was my reply:

  "I am in the process of opening a line of communication by putting together a detailed account (to be sent by snail mail to Lawrence Wollersheim) of what has transpired on these boards, including appointing an atheist as moderator over the Christian boards who recently stated it was "great fun" creating insulting graphics depicting Jesus in drag hanging on the Cross for instance, and posting it to the Christian boards here. Also, on Christmas Eve 2011, posting a link to the YouTube video of a song titled "**** Christmas" which he described as his "favorite". That this same person's appointment caused outrage due to his reputation, and how whomever made this appointment initially admitted it was a mistake, and then joined in collusion to deceive the participants of the board by giving this troll a different alias to give the impression a new moderator had been installed, when in fact, it was the same board troll/atheist.

This situation resulted in a conflict of interest and subsequent abuse of the moderator's position by unfairly banning those he does not particularly like, while giving others a pass, especially when they were attacking those this moderator also doesn't like. 

All the details will be sent to to Mr. Wollershiem as well as Robert Perry the co-founder, this same letter will be posted on numerous boards on the Internet, and I am going to appeal to various media outlets that report on the war against Christianity by progressives. I find it highly ironic and contradictory that Mr. Wollershiem and Mr. Perry would put together a website presumably for the public good, while some of their staff members are acting like the cult leaders the site was meant to inform the public about. I do not think they would want such negative publicity, and I am not sure they know what's going on in their own forums, so I am going to be fair and find out if they do, before I choose whether to proceed or not with an expose'. 

In regards to your comment above, all the fact that you can't ban anyone by yourself tells me is that you want to push the blame on someone else, or at the very least share the blame, for this gross abuse of forum rules. You can't hide behind them one day, then blatantly break them yourself on another day, and expect participants to just sit by and be bullied like that. 

Though it is obvious we don't have to participate, which I no longer am willing to do, for the true public good, people should be informed of the bias and apparent agenda of FactNet's staff, who are contributing to the anti-Christian bias which is such an integral part of the liberal/progressive agenda. Conservatives in an increasing number are getting off the bench to aid in the fight to expose this discrimination, which is just as insidious as the racism, antisemitism, and intolerance practiced by some organized cults FactNet supposedly was founded to contend with. 

This situation is so egregious, and the response to my protests so incredibly absurd, I really have to ensure Mr. Wollersheim and Mr. Perry are aware
of the potential for scandal which exposing the actions of some of their staff members an have."

This was met with what could be Dodghe/Josh125's first attempt at intimidation:

03-30-2012 09:29 AM

Josh125 

Moderator

Join Date

Jan 2006

Posts

122

 Lawrence, Furillo and I

"That’s fine, Smyrna, if you want to file a complaint with Lawrence. You and the Shepherds Chapel threads were brought up the last time Furillo and I talked with him, so he’s aware of who you are. Be well."

No doubt he would expect that I would suspect he had already filled Wollershime's head with horror stories about me, to paint me as the bad guy, so he can justify his bullshit, which I predict won't work in the end.

THE INTIMIDATION IS CONFIRMED

As you will see on the comments to my article here titled:   A Brief Message For Today, Dodge/Will/josh125 foolishly tried to intimidate me, by alluding to what he has been told is my place of employment, as well as one of my other activities, as an investor in various financial instruments, and using my real first name:

WillMar 30, 2012 12:46 PM

Hi Kevin. I was looking at my investment portfolio, and was thinking of putting some capital into Stone Energy Corporation. You know, at 625 East Kaliste Saloom Road in LaFayette. You’re from that area, aren’t you? What do you think? I see their common stock is up 1.05 percent at the opening bell today.

ReplyDelete


THE PLOT THICKENS

He obtained this information form only one possible source, the FactNet poster known as "Stage Director. Here is my reply to his attempt at intimidating me the original comment is posted under the article A Brief Message For Today:

Smyrna SC DefenderMar 31, 2012 04:30 AM

Stone Energy is the company Stage Director thinks I work for. Your attempt at intimidation is laughable, and also revealing. I set up an account at YUKU called 'Truthrevealed' a couple of years ago, posing as a longtime FactNet user and Smyrna hater. Here is a copy of the PM at YUKU she sent 'truthrevealed':

May 08, 2010 at 6:51 am

"Stage Director: Smyrna is on CBRC using the id MindyAnders. I've been tracking him since day one, and he's gotten careless and posted from Stone Energy, a company with oil rigs in the gulf.And it's a corporate ip set up by AT&T, and not a proxy or a shared network devise. It's a rather loosely guarded secret and he's locked out of the restricted forum."

So now not only do I have proof you are trying to intimidate me, but also that Stage Director is helping you. Smyrna wins again, and will continue to do so, because you are an evil clown Dodge, and so are your allies on FactNet's staff. Is this the stuff Wollershiem would approve of? If so, that is very sad, but simply new material for me. Not that it matters, but I've never worked for Stone Energy, and it wouldn't matter if I did.

Looks like she got careless, I knew that account at YUKU would pay me off sooner or later.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

This is yet another point of evidence that will confirm my earlier comments about how FactNet's staff act very much like the evil cult leaders FactNet was supposedly founded to fight against. I still doubt Lawrence Wollersheim knows all that his staff has done, but the evidence is mounting, and I really hope for all the good FactNet has and can continue to do, that he doesn't know,and will do something when he is so informed.  

A Brief Message For Today

I have just begun this fight. I have a lot of fight in me, for those who have engaged with me for the last six years at FactNet get ready for another six years if needed, but this time going after the abusive actions of an organization that gives the impression they exist for the public good, while allowing their staff to attack Christians and treat them with contempt. Christianity, whether one professes Christ or not, has done more good for more than a thousand years than the rest of the world at large. There certainly have been negatives, which liberals wish to exploit in their war against Christianity while they ignore the enormous good Christian Churches and organizations have done, but overall, the world would be a much different and terrible place were it not for Christianity.

And for my part, exposing those who wish to destroy Christianity is something I do not take lightly, which FactNet's founders and staff are about to find out. I am in the process of contacting FactNet's founders in regard to the behavior of members of their staff, to ensure they are aware of them, which I doubt. Their response is how I will determine how I will proceed.

Campaign Against FactNet

I am going to find out how the Christian community at large on the Internet will react to the actions of FactNet's
staff and their appointment of an atheist and Christian antagonist to their Christian oriented forums. There is an increasing amount of backlash by the Christian community, a search of keywords 'war on Christianity'  shows numerous groups who are not going to sit and be treated like second class citizens, the Biblical passages" turn the other cheek is being translated in a less literal way, which is good.

Had Christianity been "wussified" during earlier times, it would not have survived. And like all kingdoms, there are civilians, and there are soldiers. Here, at SC Defender, Christians of all sects and denominations are to be defended against secular forces that hate Christianity and discriminate against its followers.

How FactNet treats Christians is but one example of an overall attack by liberals, many of them atheists. FactNet's staff should be taken to task for not only appointing an atheist and Christian antagonist to their Christian boards, but for lying and basically being apathetic to complaints made about their treatment of Christian users. Their excuses will not fit their actions, their spin won't help them.

FactNet Staff Hopelessly Deluded

I have been berating the point FactNet's staff apparently feel there is no conflict of interest in appointing a practicing board troll and atheist to moderate their Christian boards. There is no sense in continuing to highlight the issue, and I'd like to end my coverage of it by noting this same troll, known as Dodge as his regular user id, but as Josh125 when he has his moderator hat on, is not only disliked on the Christian board, but also on the other boards where he is active as well.

There have been other complaints about him, but as it has come to be expected, he acts as he is infallible and never takes personal accountability for his actions. Though he did apologize for posting childish, inflammatory graphics denigrating Christianity on the same board he is now moderator, his attitude has not changed and thus his apology is null and void. He is condescending and openly pokes fun at Christians by making snide, sarcastic remarks about their beliefs.

It is reprehensible FactNet's staff allows this clown to run loose on their boards and do and say as he pleases, claiming he doesn't break any rules. Let's take a look at what he says which to him isn't ad hominem, because he believes what he say is true, which is a very strange definition of the term:

 "Yes, indeed, at one time a while back I posted images of Jesus on the cross dressed in drag, as Santa Claus, as the Holy Ghost, a Pilgrim, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, Superman, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, and a few others. 

It was fun, I enjoyed playing with Photoshop and creating those outrageous characterizations of the imaginary supernatural being that people call Jesus, Christ, and The Lord. As someone who sees this mythic character from the Bible as existing nowhere but in the minds of those who believe it, it really didn’t mean anything to me. It might as well have been Zeus, Hercules, Mickey Mouse, or Zippy the Pinhead." Dodge's insulting comments

Even though I noted in a rebuttal that the famous historian Flavius Josephus (37 A.D. - 100 A.D) mentioned Jesus in his writings, and the authors of the Gospels were eye witnesses to Jesus' life,  Dodge claims Jesus never existed. I guess he must have been there, that's how he's so sure. This is the arrogance which comes through so clearly, and reflects in the way he "moderates" the Christian boards.

As I posted in my last message at FactNet:

"Dodge you are a study in hypocrisy. You tailor your interpretations of the rules here to aggressively go after those you disagree with, while softening them to allow your own attacks against others to go unpunished, and that goes for those who you approve of when they attack those who you do not approve of.

That is the core of your conflict of interest. All your insults are "opinions" while others who express their opinions are flaming and insulting, and using abusive ad hominem. Your snide, condescending attitude towards others is just as offensive to me as your smarmy revulsion to Sammael's use of street language, at least he doesn't pretend to be someone else.

The rules of this forum are what is being abused, and that is the problem with giving someone authority over those he has admitted he sees as gullible and easily manipulated by the superior intellect he perceives himself to be. 

In your world, "behaving yourself" is following your own whimsical interpretations of forum rules as you apply them to others, while hypocritically violating them by insulting others and attempt to incite them into defending themselves, at which time you render your gavel and sentence them in a game you relish, because you thus always can win and end whenever you wish. 

The problem with that thinking is no one is bound here and that is your one unsolvable problem, and the one thing that truly puts you, and not anyone else, in a position to fail. With no subjects, a king is nobody, powerless, and worthless. 

You are still making me the issue,(ad hominem) when in reality, it's this conflict of interest which was created by allowing you any position of authority here. It has made a bad situation worse, since at least when the boards where essentially unmoderated, the rules being ignored by absentee moderators and thus by participants alike, it made for a level playing field no matter who one decided to side with. 

If you think you are enforcing rules here you are sorely mistaken. You manipulate them, so when it comes to credibility, I don't think you should be casting any stones."

In his mind the above is an ad hominem attack, but according to his own definition, if I believe what I'm saying then it's allowable and isn't ad hominem. The problem is he never uses that definition when others are commenting about their opponents, only he can actually insult people and get away with it, because he moderates himself.

Here is the definition of ad hominem: "Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument." 

His problem is he seems to forget the definition or modifies it when he' moderating. He's just a clown, and so he can now sit there with essentially a dead board, since few will put up with his nonsense and games. 

 

Congratulations to Sammael!

"Sammael" a former frequent poster at FactNet,org and a new contributor here, has been banned for a year from FactNet's discussion board. He wanted to be banned, as he also is aware of the incompetent, dishonest moderators, one of which an admitted board troll. It's amazing to me that a board troll has been appointed moderator over the very same forum he trolls on. I guess it's a sign of the times, when corruption reigns supreme in so many venues of human society.

Wear your ban as a badge of honor Sammael, it's your reward for leaving the moderator/troll unable to explain his contradictory and controversial position at FactNet. Our aim here is to show precisely how FactNet's decision to allow an atheist/troll to moderate the Christian discussion boards and an incompetent one at that, exposes that site as being run by leftists with an agenda not unlike the Southern Poverty Law Center. For Conservatives that have had enough of "community organizers" who promote "social justice" FactNet will be shown as another viable target to place in your cross hairs.

Conservatives don't fall for the liberal ruse of world dominance by elitists who attack religion because  they seek to become the gods of their visionary Utopian world where they see themselves as the gods over  those they are trying to brainwash into thinking they are working in the best interest of society when in actuality they seek to destroy it and replace it with their own.

This bias of FactNet's moderators against Christians is part if this large picture of just what is going on in this country, and people better wake up before it's too late.

How To Spot The Losers

This is something that can be observed in any Internet forum that has two factions opposed to each other. Over the course of time, one will be the winner of the majority of observers. If there was a vote taken, one side would consistently be seen as the winner. So what is it the losers cannot see in their case, which appears weak to everyone else, but looks so strong to them? It's very hard to even imagine they really believe they haven't been defeated.  Can they be delusional en masse? Have they brainwashed themselves?  Or my personal suspicion: they have invested so much time and effort to nurture their beliefs and to see them discredited, they refuse to admit defeat and concede.

This situation may occur hundreds of times in a prolonged argument with numerous participants on both sides, a case in point is the conflict between Liberal and Conservative ideological political views. Liberals seem irrational to the point of mental illness by Conservatives; demagogues who are political con artists. Liberals see Conservatives as evil, self absorbed greedy people who are willing to watch their fellow man unfairly suffer because they refuse to give away their hard earned money so Liberals have to invent ways to take it from them, like modern day Robin Hoods.  

This model of prolonged opposition repeats itself  in so many different arguments, and the cause is one is winning the marketing game, and the only way to win it is by gaining trust. Con artists gain trust through trickery, a truly righteous person will provide fact after fact which exposes the con artist for what they truly are.

So my suggestion when you observe or are a participant in any prolonged argument: do what is right, keep presenting demonstrable facts, and those observing will see who are the con artists and who are the righteous.      

FactNet.org No Longer Trusted For Shepherd's Chapel Information

I am the last of any true Shepherd's Chapel representation at the website FactNet.org. In other words, there are no longer any students there as I have quit being an active participant due to reasons mentioned in detail in this blog) to correct those commenting on the SC in the discussion boards as none are students, and most are enemies of the chapel with an agenda designed to unfairly label the SC as anything from heretics to Nazis. 

Therefore, with nothing but inaccurate information being posted at Factnet, not to mention outright lies, I wouldn't recommend you get your info from that site re the SC. The absolute best place for info on the Shepherd's Chapel is obvious: through the Shepherd's Chapel website, and through the SC program. The Shepherd's Chapel Network  can be accessed  through DirectTV on ch. 224 most hours of the day.

Shepherd's Chapel and Racism

Let me begin by providing you with Pastor Arnold Murray's own words regarding the frequent charge of racism in his ministry:

Racism
Pastor Murray on 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)."

The charge of racism by SC detractors stems mainly from Murray's teaching that Genesis in its Hebrew form is an account of God creating the races separately before He created Adam and Eve. Contrary to Christian Fundamentalism, Murray teaches the creation of man and the creation of "Ha adam"(The Adam)  and Eve in Genesis 2  were separate events rather than a reiteration of one event. Murray teaches that representative of all the major races were created on the sixth day. In one lecture on Genesis, Murray opined that the Chinese (mongoloid aka Oriental race) possible could have been created earlier, due to their ancient historical accounts of their culture which appears to predate the earliest Biblical history.

He made reference to the fact the Asian cultures seemed to have always been quite adept at farming the sea, and getting most of their food from water, something that is true even today. This departure from Scripture and to his clearly stated conjecture (he clearly said not to ask him to document in Scripture what he was saying about the mongoloid race as it was his opinion) this did not stop the most outrageous Shepherd's Chapel propaganda propagator for declaring :"Murray teaches the Chinese came form sea creatures." Such is the extent of negative spin which has no basis in truth we see so often from Chapel critics. More on this person later.

I've been a Chapel student for twenty-two years, and I have never heard Murray teach any race should see themselves better than another. For those who follow Liberalism as their religion, no, we do not have "just one human race" and science seems to disagree with that. Scientists in the field of anthropology claim to have found "proto-humans" i.e. Homo Erectus  with the same racial characteristics as their Homo Sapien counterparts. In other words, you may see the three "sub-species" present in Homo Erectus as well. 

Because of Christian Fundamentalism's permeation of theological thought which foolishly clings to just one man and woman (Noah and his Wife, since they also claim all humans except the Noah family died in the Flood) scientists  remain confused, as do many people who care think about man's origin's are today.  Briefly, Noah, his wife, and children, no matter what race they belonged to, could not have been the progenitors of Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongoloids  nor was there enough time or barriers to put any veracity on the truly racist myth that all three not only came form the Noah family, but had characteristics which separated them from one another such as spiritual wisdom and  brute strength,

The Shepherd's Chapel teaches that mankind was created and that God declared all that He created to be "very good." There is thus no contradiction made by the SC in that. What is also taught is that "The Adam" and Eve were created for the specific purpose of being the progenitors of the bloodline from which Jesus Christ came from, i.e. the Hebrew or Jewish peoples, of which the Bible is primarily focused upon.    

Strange Bedfellows

What would you do if you were a participant of a Conservative discussion board, and you found out a far left Liberal loon was appointed to moderate that board? You would, at the very least, complain, right?  And what if your complaint was met with an apology, the chief moderator admitting he made a mistake , and said the Liberal would be asked to excuse himself? You would be satisfied with that resolution, would you not?

But what if you later found out the same far left Liberal loon was still the moderator, but operating under an alias, an alias given to him by the chief moderator who earlier apologized for his "mistake" of appointing a far left Liberal loon to your Conservative discussion board? And what would your reaction be if some of your fellow Conservatives didn't seem to think anything was amiss with this? Would you not think they were insane?

Well, this is a scenario that is playing out right now at FactNet.org, on the Christian oriented discussion boards there. Check out this link to follow it: Factnet.org  You need not sign on to read the posts. The only difference is that an atheist  and admitted board troll has been the subject/moderator. Those who have been reading along have learned the story.

Some of these Christians that think nothing of having a board troll who has demonstrated his contempt of Christianity many times by sarcastically addressing the Bible as all myth and has even posted disgusting graphics such as Christ hanging on the Cross dressed as a drag queen. Are they that enslaved by this discussion board, and subservient to the moderating staff that they are willing to be treated that way? It's outrageous. And then to have the chief moderator lie and claim this atheist has been removed, when in reality he was just given a new alias. That's not a big deal?

I know I'm repeating the same complaints I've outlined in my first articles here. But it is mind boggling  anyone would put up with that, and even claim it's no big deal. Maybe because they haven't yet felt the prejudice this person has exhibited by unfairly treating those he has come to personally dislike when he was in his role as an antagonist. Or perhaps it's because those who think it's no big deal have this troll on their side of most issues and think he will never turn against them. I suspect this is the case here.

I am used to seeing Shepherd's Chapel detractors pick some very strange bedfellows while they feed their obsession. One person actually went to the far left Southern Poverty Law Center and found some clown to write a smear piece on the SC using what her spin on the SC rather than facts. That is relatively easy to do since the SPLC is decidedly anti-Christian and has been on a campaign to label any right wing Christian groups as "hate groups". You can read coverage of how SC students fought off the silly article about the Chapel here: Southern Poverty Law Center  Another runs his own website critical of nearly anyone he disagrees with regarding religion, claims he's Conservative, yet quotes liberal sources because he thinks more like a Liberal. SC detractors appear to have no problem aligning themselves with atheists, board trolls and Liberal Christian haters in their zeal to try and smear the SC.         

Reading Between The Lines

The title of my article is a cliche, one that applies to nearly everything we read. It speaks to our own perceptions, but it also speaks to the words of those whose words we read. I don't wish to drag on my conflicts with FactNet management, which unfortunately has taken up too much space on this blog already. But reading their words will show you they follow a model, which in time I will show ALL SC critics are cut from the same mold.

The focus here should be to inform readers, both SC students and those curious about the ministry, of attempts by dishonest critics who are willing to use every trick possible to smear the pastors and those who choose to study with them. And since most of my battles in the last few years have been waged at FactNet.org, I feel it is necessary to start mapping out their deceitful behavior by exhibiting examples which are not limited to the detractors who have engaged in debates at FactNet. If I were to be limited to one term that describes Shepherd's Chapel critics best it's arrogance.

Who are you, detractor, to tell anyone what to believe? Who are you, that thinks your mission is so important that you can lie about the pastor's and student's personal lives, accusing them of being heretics, Nazis, racists and antisemitic? What gives you authority to tell others that the SC ministry isn't even Christian? 

Even though the detractors I know at FactNet claim to be mostly Conservative, they act more like liberals with their nanny state, "I know better what is good for you" mentality. And they don't stop with disagreeing with your beliefs. No, they want to control you. Those who have been reading from the first article here can see how the atheist board troll and now appointed moderator at FactNet's Christian has chosen to behave here. He enjoys his own arrogance. You've already seen how he lies and tries to make me the issue when his own reputation is on the line. You've seen how he has tried to goad me into going back to FactNet.

He is so narcissistic, he's having a fit that he lost someone he could try and control at FactNet. I went back there to address the propaganda they are now spreading about me there. It's how they operate, they smear anyone who disagrees with them. And when they get a dose of their own medicine, they cry foul. They are world class hypocrites, which is the second best descriptive term which can be applied to SC detractors whether they are at FactNet or publish their own websites.

It's really something to see them in operation. Anyone who follows politics will see the similarities between them and how liberals act. They accuse others of things they are experts at. They will ignore any evidence you show them, no matter how convincing, because they refuse to ever admit they are wrong about even the most trivial thing. They will lie, and when you ask them to prove what they are saying, they ignore you. They will at other times acknowledge a fact you give them, but then they attack the source as dubious or incompetent, of course, without any examples or any proof. One can fill a book with tactics they use to carry on this jihad of their against the SC. It's an obsession.

I came to FactNet in 2005, and was appalled by the amount of garbage that was being heaped on the SC and the students who study with the SC. There was no moderation to speak of. I complained to the moderators and they just ignored it, often without even replying at all. After almost seven years now they chose to appoint an atheist and Christian basher to moderate those boards and they call that an improvement! It is so bizarre, when I went to confront them about this over there over the last two days, they are now accusing me of being a troll.

Funny, I'm not accusing Dodge/Will/Josh125, the guy you see commenting on my article here, of trolling my reader's comments feature here. But I go over there and he still wants to control what I say, even though all I was doing was answering their own comments and questions about the issues I raised. It seems the detractors and this "moderator" have yet a third trait in common: they try and control the flow of information, and opinions, they are welcome to present theirs, but when I present mine, I am "obsessed" and "trolling."

I will continue this article tomorrow and will provide readers with the exchange of messages that went on at FactNet so you can see for yourselves just how these people operate. Because it is a model as to how ALL SC detractors operate, every single one I have ever come across.I say it's evil. You can make your own decision what it is.

What This Blog's Stats Tell Me

Note: While researching Matt Slick's coverage of the Shepherd's Chapel, of carm,.org, I notice he finally updated his site to include video slander of the SC, which I'm so sure it is, even though I haven't yet seen the videos in order to determine what they contain. As it will take time for me to view them all, I am going to tackle some other subjects before I give Mr. Slick as fair a hearing as I can before I rebut his "research". For those awaiting coverage of Slick, just for fun I suggest you view his debate with Catholic theologian  Dr. Robert Sungenis. I will reserve my thoughts about the debate until a later time. Readers can make their own judgements, but I can assure you, it is a great debate!  Dr. Sungenis vs.Matt Slick - YouTube

This blog has not been promoted in any way, other than to announce it at FactNet.org whereby it was quickly removed by the moderator Dodge/Josh125 with no explanation, and claiming it is against the rules is nothing but BS, because my buddy Jeff_Franklin uses the URL to his website as a signature on every posts he makes, and  even when I brought it up as a violation, a few months ago, he wasn't cited.

The page views on this blog total over 700. Most of which came in the first few days. Since only participants of the FactNet forum were the only ones notified of the opening, it was their repeated visit that pumped up the page view number. I can only speculate these detractors are so worried about what I have to say about them, they have collectively come here more than 700 times within a week! I'm so flattered! The past few days, the page views have dropped quite a bit. I expected that as I turned my focus on other critics such as Alnor and Slick.

I think we may, and that is a maybe, we have seen the last of Dodge/Josh125/Will, after he was busted lying about his other alias at FactNet, "Josh125" which he's using in his role as moderator. The humorous thing about it is he is moderating himself along with the Christians he has decidedly treated with contempt and bias in his roles as both a participant as well as a moderator. I have wasted enough time exposing this clown, and that goes for the other moderator that gave Dodge his job. 

I will return to the follies, humor and other experiences I've had over the last six years defending the Shepherd's
Chapel at FactNet.org. Mainly because it not only is hilariously funny, even for those who have never witnessed the debates there, but also because it cuts through the BS brought by SC detractors, and so for SC students you will know you have a voice against the liars and smear merchants that prowl the Internet. 

Let's Get Out of Dodge!

Delaying the full exposure of Matt Slick and  his Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry for another day, because I want to get Dodge out of the way. Dodge, aka  "Josh125" is the person you see posting comments here under the name Will, his first name.

 He is one of the topics you'll read about in my first article here. A board troll who once harassed the Christian forums at FactNet.org by posting disgusting graphics such as Jesus in drag hanging on the Cross, he claims he is reformed because he no longer does that. However, he still trolls the Christian boards as Dodge, inciting arguments while insinuating Christians are gullible based upon their religious beliefs.

Yet this is the person the FactNet administrators feel is qualified to be a moderator on the very same Christian boards he trolls. Even worse, after the participants protested, the administrators claimed he was removed and a person known as "Josh125" was installed as the new moderator.

Yesterday, on this blog, Will/Dodge/Josh125 finally admitted he is Josh125, as we always suspected. However, he lied, as claimed he was only using that alias for a short time, before someone took it over who he "knows very well." Funny, there was no perceptible difference in writing style all this time, and other traits Dodge has exhibited over the least few years are easily seen in Josh125. Furthermore, Dodge never admitted he was Josh125 at any time prior to yesterday, and I asked  the staff member responsible for assigning  moderators straight up if Josh125  was Dodge, and he went off on a rant about me playing detective, how close I was to being banned, and now I know why he wouldn't give me an answer.

The only reason he won't admit he is still Josh125 is because of the uproar that occurred when he announced he was the moderator of the Christian forums at FactNet, and wants to continue in that role. Well, he will be doing so without his favorite targets, and so I thank him for coming here and proving what I have been saying about FactNet's management. Corrupt, incompetent, and with a definite bias against Christians.   

A Surprise Collaborator!

I am delaying my piece on Matt Slick, who is the publisher of carm.org in order to announce I have found a source from the United Kingdom who also had discovered the lies Bill Alnor published on his now defunct website. Here is the URL: http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/truthorg/sentinel.htm But speaking of Mr. Slick, the source also mentions him: http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/truthorg/carm.htm Both Alnor and Slick derive their allegations from the CRI (Christian Research Institute) It is CRI that Murray mentions, (not be name, but simply as "Christian Researchers") in his Answer to Critics on the Shepherd's Chapel website:  http://www.shepherdschapel.com/answers.htm The CRI has a dubious reputation as well, and has been in legal troouble in the past.  These  oly rollers who point their fingers at others all too easily now have had the tables turned on them!
 http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/truthorg/criexposed.htm I thank John Beardsley, who publishes the site with this information, for doing ushc great work! http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/notebook.html

SC Detractors: Cowardice, Deceit, Incompetence

These are traits Shepherd's Chapel critics exhibit across the spectrum. They talk a good game, claiming things in their websites and forum messages such as they can back up what they say about the SC, or that anyone challenging what has been published on their anti-Chapel sites with proof will get the retraction they seek. Yet that simply is not the case, and I speak from personal experience. For example, Bill Alnor, the subject of my last article here, was sent a copy of my rebuttal to his allegations. yet, all I received in turn was some form letter rambling on about how SC students don't offer him any reason to retract his claims!  This is the kind of snake Alnor is:

Aug. 18, 2002 revision/editor's note:  "Notice: We reserve the right to publish any and all letters and E-mail posts we receive. This will include listing your name, E-mail address and personal address. We also have the right to edit your letter for brevity.

I am pointing this out because over the years we have received much mail, both pro and con, over this article.  However, a great deal of mail has been threatening in nature.  Some of it has been death threats from people who appear to be mentally unstable.  None of them were able to satisfactorily refute this article, and in fact other reputable evangelical ministries have also now published more complete articles on the false prophet, Arnold Murray, of which we will link to in the future.  Beware of Murray.  He is a wolf in sheep's clothing! " 

How intimidating to some to see that your name, personal and email address may be listed, that it is Alnor's "right" to do so! Let me mention that he also said: "None of them were able to satisfactorily refute this article, and in fact other reputable evangelical ministries have also now published more complete articles on the false prophet, Arnold Murray, of which we will link to in the future.  Beware of Murray.  He is a wolf in sheep's clothing! "

That statement is a lie, and I proved that in my article about Alnor yesterday. This kind of behavior is not limited to Alnor. SC detractors have a serious problem with credibility. Matt Slick of CARM.org also has the same issues with courage, honesty and competency. He will be the topic of tomorrow's article.    

Bill Alnor: 2nd Most Prolific Propagandist Against the SC

The following allegations were originally made by Bill Alnor on his now defunct website titled Cultlink. However, his allegations have been quoted in many sources, sources which, sadly, failed to check Mr. Alnor's allegations for truthfulness, or, in some cases, didn't care if they were true or not. 

 

1. Denies the historic doctrine of the Trinity.  Our ANSWER

2. Believes that men were once gods who existed prior to living on the earth. 

Rebuttal: Murray Answers in his Answer to Critics reproduced here: "Also, I have never taught that men were little gods. It would be a lie for someone to say so. I do teach all souls were created by our Father. A Christian that would not teach this fact would have a big problem with Scripture."

3. Teaches the divisive doctrine promoted by other cults that the Anglo-Saxons are the chosen race, and America and Great Britain are the lost tribes of the children of Israel.... And from an earthly perspective his teachings promote bigotry against Jews, blacks and all non-Anglo-Saxon people. 

Rebuttal: If you go to Murray's Answer to critics page, the Chapel offers video clips of their annual Passover meeting. On the video you will see folks from many different races. Pinheads like Alnor are closet racists, since they must think that African- Americans and others who study with the Chapel are too stupid to realize that Murray is a racist, and smart white folks like Alnor are just trying to help them see the light.

4. Denies the existence of hell.

Rebuttal: This is another outright lie. It is a common lie passed along by people who refuse to acknowledge the variety of applications of the words sheol, keber, gehenna, geena, hades, tataroo, and the lake of fire. For reference see The Oxford Companion to the Bible the article titled Hell.

Are you sure you know your Bible, Bill?

5. Claims the doctrine of the rapture is "cultic."

Rebuttal: Internet is quite capable of providing documentation that a vast majority of Churches DO NOT believe that the pre-tribulation rapture THEORY has any credibility. Those who believe in some "Rapture" are more "cultic" than those who don't. Just place Rapture Theory in the search engines and see what you can find. See one example here.

6. Bestows a special honor on himself, claiming to be God’s exclusive end time messenger for the world. 

Rebuttal: From Murray's Answer To Critics, he responds:  "Some researchers say that I claim to be God's exclusive messenger for this era. I have never thought this, much less claimed it. Such a claim is another outright lie. Those "researchers" cannot prove it because I have never said this. A Christian would not think of making up lies about someone, so how should we label these "Christian Researchers?"

7. Falsely claims to have a doctorate degree from a properly accredited university or seminary.

Rebuttal: Once again, we go straight to Murray's Answer To Critics for his response to this charge:  "It is true that I have a policy of not publicly stating where I earned my doctorate because then "critics" cannot judge me by association. I have always publicly stated that my credentials are my ability to teach God's Word. To the extent that our Heavenly Father blesses me with the ability to clearly teach His Word then what higher ordination could there be?"

We'd like to add we can't blame him either, considering the way these jerks lie and use deceptive tactics against Murray and his students. Now you have seen the proof!

SC Racist? You've Got To be Crazy!

Some detractors of the SC accuse the pastors of teaching racism via white superiority. They claim this because the SC teaches all races were created separately. But that teaching in and of itself isn't racist, there's nothing in that teaching that preaches a message of hatred or supremacy of any race over another. But no matter how many times they have been told this, along with the fact the pastors of the SC also teach that when God created the races, he declared all of His creation to be "very good" the knuckle headed critics still accuse. At Factnet, there is no better example of total ignorance than the poster known as Jeff_Franklin.

 The SC on its own website says this about 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

 But this idiot still accuses the SC of racism, he also compares the SC to the Nazis. Obviously, as a student I take great offense to this. Franklin was banned for saying things like that, yet he now says it without impunity on the Factnet forums, and this is testimony yet again to the incompetence of the troll/atheist turned moderator called Dodge as a poster, and Josh125 as the moderator.

Back to Franklin, this is so typical of detractors both at FactNet and other websites, where the publishers have been shown proof the SC does not teach racism: they ignore it, and continue to make the allegation. This only works against them, as anyone who can see this is what they do, would have to be just as nutty as they are to continue to listen to them. The very best way to get to the truth is simply to watch the SC program on their own, and make their own decision.

There is evidence not only that Jeff_Franklin himself has racist views, but he as well as the other antagonist at FactNet, "Stage Director" contradict themselves. First of all, one of their allies, who goes by the user name "Chad14" made numerous comments that could only be interpreted as racist, such as the long held racist belief that the descendants of Ham, one of Noah's sons, was cursed and his descendants from henceforth had black skin. he also called black students of the SC "tokens" who probably were hired to appear on the videos at the two annual meetings the SC hold, during Passover and in the Fall (Fall Fellowship) in addition to the regular Church services in Gravette, Ar.  The fact neither Stage Director or Franklin have gone on daily rants against Chad14 over these comments, is prove their persecution of the Pastors of the SC is not only selective, it is deceptive and dishonest.

Franklin has used the racial slur "lily white" on a few occasions while accusing others of being racists. Stage Director has admitted she buys into the 'Aryan myth', that the descendants of their three sons  were of three separate races: black, oriental, and white. I see no difference between someone teaching the races were created separately and believing that Noah's sons has children of three distinct racial types. There is no end to these particular detractor's contradictions and lunacy.


Tomorrow, I will switch gears and focus Bill Alnor the second most prolific liar when it comes to detractors of the SC (Stage Director has the top title based upon volume and repetition) of Cultlink. His allegations were disputed many years ago, yet he still accuses the SC of those very same things. It really shows how sick these people must be, to be shown proof and yet ignore that proof and still publish the garbage they do about the Shepherd's Chapel.    

In my last article I mentioned I would show how SC detractors misrepresent the teachings of the ministry and accuse it of spreading racism and antisemitism.

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 Shepherd's Chapel teachings.

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)

Shepherd's Chapel Detractors at Factnet

I am going to pepper this blog with examples of the Shepherd's Chapel detractors, mainly because I'd like to spread the wealth of entertainment rather than focus on it exclusively. There is a serious side to dealing with people who claim to be religious yet have no problem spreading vile propaganda about a ministry. This is not about one opinion verses another. I will prove these individuals are malicious rumor mongers. Some have been told literally hundreds of times their characterization of Shepherd's chapel teachings are wrong, yet they continue to mislead others to this very day.

 As a matter of fact, since I decided to stop participating in the SC oriented forums at FactNet two day ago, the detractors there are already doing what they do best: deliberately posting misleading descriptions of what the SC teaches. It is my intention to use this blog to show how they misrepresent SC teachings, in order to totally discredit them. They use tactics that appear to be common on Internet forums: when proven wrong, they will ignore the evidence, change the subject, wait until subsequent posts bury the topic all together, only to make the same accusations at a later time, and it turns into a merry-go-round, they do it over and over again. I will get into specific examples in my next article.

                                       What Makes the SC Ministry So Controversial?

By far the most controversial aspect of the SC ministry is its teaching of the Serpent's Seed. At Factnet.org, there are more than 5,000 posts that deal with that topic alone, mainly because of the situation I described in the last paragraph. Fundamentally, the Serpent's Seed teaching interprets the Genesis account of Adam, Eve and the Serpent as a literal, historical account of Eve being seduced by the serpent, described as an angelic being, a fallen archangel. Adam has relations with Eve also, and two children were born, both sons, one named Cain, the other, Abel. As Cain was the son of Eve and the serpent, his descendants were evil, Cain was the first murderer with the killing of his brother Abel. The descendants of the brother who replaced him, Seth, included Abraham, Noah, in an unbroken line leading to the birth of Christ, in other words the people known as the Jews.
   By doing an Internet search of the topic, one can find many variations of the Serpent's Seed teaching, and many commentaries about it, from both believers as well as unbelievers. One unfortunate circumstance involving this teaching, is some groups have used it to support antisemitic agendas, claiming that the descendants of Cain are the Jews we see today. Detractors of the SC connect those groups with the Shepherd's Chapel, which is dishonest, misleading and part of a malicious smear campaign they have waged against this ministry.

 I do not intend to use this blog to make a case for or against the Serpent Seed teaching. While you will learn more about the SC's version, and why it is dishonest to call it antisemitic or racist, one can do their own research into the topic, as much has been written about it and can be found in many places on the web.
 The SC detractors at FactNet, which currently amounts to two individuals, one going by the name 'Stage Director' the other 'Jeff_Franklin' despite so many points of evidence which shows they must be either lying or mentally unstable, refuse to acknowledge they are wrong.But they are not alone, there are other websites that publish inaccurate and misleading claims against the SC regarding this topic as well. many simply copy what "Christian Researchers" have published, without verifying the information is accurate.They have been proven wrong  many times about their claims regarding what the SC teaches, yet they continue to spread this propaganda.
  One point I have brought up repeatedly at FactNet is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)  both publish lists of antisemitic and racist hate groups, yet neither mention the SC ministry at all. despite my asking these two detractors why that may be more than forty days in a row at one point, they ignored the question, and then tried the weakest excuses for this these glaring omissions, including the ADL being a "non-issue" (even though the very same person attempted to use the ADL's article on Christian Identity ministries as "proof" dozens of times, and simply "I don't know" which was Stage Director's answer, after ignoring the question at least forty times.

In tomorrow's entry, I will go into specifically why the SC version of the Serpent's Seed is not antisemitic or racist, and how detractors spin it into their own version of an antisemitic teaching and apply it to the SC in their attempt to smear the SC ministry by grouping it with ministries that truly are racist and antisemitic.  

My War With Shepherd's Chapel Detractors

Shepherd's Chapel (SC) is a ministry located in Gravette, Ar. a small town in the Northwest  corner of the state. You can Google the name as well as that of it's founder, Pastor Arnold Murry, and get quite a bit of info, form detractors and supporters alike. There is no question it is a controversial ministry, but the Internet is like the mainstream media when it come to the hyperbole and amplification of  the controversial nature of the SC. 

It is the dishonesty of the detractors, many whom call themselves Christians and publish websites broadcasting their own ministries while bashing the SC with vile, dishonest, and malicious gossip, not to mention downright lies. I find that most puzzling, since there are clearly differences between what the SC teaches and other Churches. After all, Christianity is fragmented into thousands of independent churches and many denominations, all separated by doctrinal differences, among other things. What possesses detractors and causes them to carry their war on the SC so much further from those differences and into the realm of propaganda is a study that will be taken up here, as I highlight some of the people and organizations involved.

I came to the Internet in the mid 90's and there was already a presence of SC students as they like to be called, and also critics. With the growth of the Internet, many more people are now involved on both sides. I will focus upon my personal experience in the battle between the two factions, mainly at FactNet, but I will also be highlighting other websites that are critical of the SC and focus on those personalities who run those sites.  

My experience at FactNet over the six years I was participant was a great deal of fun. It had all the ingredients of an epic movie: drama, humor, scandal, for a few (that got caught) romance, and intrigue. Some of the funniest stuff I've ever read anywhere I read at FactNet's Shepherd's Chapel oriented threads. Sometimes I read archives that are years old and laugh just like I never saw them before. There's no question the practice of closing insane asylums and letting quite a few nut cases on the loose was not a good idea.

In future messages, I'll introduce some of them to you. I think that after a few examples, you'll be wondering where the ';reality" show is to cover these people, and yes, that includes myself!     

FACTNET'S INCOMPETENT AND DISHONEST MODERATING STAFF

I was a member of FactNet.org's forums for six years. During that time I saw the moderators there being basically virtually absent, to just recently, dishonest, overbearing, biased,  incompetent, all the above. The final straws started a few months ago, when the head moderator placed an atheist in the role as a moderator over the Christian oriented forums there. Not just any atheist, but a long time antagonist who was known to harass the Christian boards by putting disgusting graphics such as Jesus hanging on the Cross in drag on the pages of the Christian threads, by mocking Christian beliefs, and calling Christians fools. I suppose that's ineptitude and/or apathy on the account of the head moderator.

 Just like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, isn't it?! After everyone complained, the head moderator told us the atheist was relieved of that position, and that a "Methodist minister" would take his place. To make a long story short, which means I won't bore you with how we found out it was the same guy, the Fact(net) is the head moderator just gave the atheist an account that had been parked for a long time, which gave him a new alias. Same hateful atheist, but with a different identity.  

A few of us suspected this, but with little to go on at the outset, some of us figured that we were just stuck with him and trusted that he would try to be fair, only because he didn't want to seem inept in that role. (ego?) Anyway, as I suspected, over time his prejudices surfaced. He never did like me nor one of my arch enemies. I know that others there may say it's because we were the most aggressive and verbally abusive, but the real story goes deeper than just us being rough on others. You can't have people breaking the same rules as we did without any penalty at all, while myself and one of my arch enemies gets banned longer than anyone else ever has.     

Rules should always be enforced equally, so obviously there was a bias at work. And FactNet's forum rules don't say anything about your history being part of a decision in the present. In other words, just because you may have been banned before doesn't mean you'll get banned longer or more easily when subsequent infractions occur.

So for anyone who is considering joining FactNet forums, let this be a warning to you. They are neither fair and they are very left leaning politically, which means Christians, beware! The audacity of placing an atheist with a history of harassing Christians on the very same board where he harassed the very same people as their moderator, then lying about removing him and placing him back in that role with a different user id is
as dishonest as one can be.