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.