Letbs Play Guess Who

[smyrna]

Hi folks, it's getting a bit heated around here, all this arguing and accusing. So let's play a new game.

We'll call it, Guess Who?

I'll post a portion of someone's comments, it could be from here, or CB, or maybe even The Season.
And then everyone can guess who the poster was.

Ready? Let's Play; Guess Who?!!!!!!!!!

Okay, here it is:

"One of my husbands liked to wear women's underwear. That was a real problem (we're divorced) so you could say "I've walked some in those shoes". He was real proud of being a marine, too.

Someone even closer to me is graduating this year and going to a Christian college to become a counsellor. He is unsure of his sexuality but I happen to think he is a great example of a Christian. He doesn't flaunt his feelings, and most are unaware of it."

Go ahead, take a guess!!!!!!!!

The winner will receive an autographed photo of the some of our SC sisters in front of the SC Church in Gravette, Ar.

Have fun!

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">This sounds like a fun game Smyrna!

Let's see, there are some clues:

1. We know it's a woman, for they are talking about their husband.

2. We know it's someone who was married more than once, for they say "one of my husbands".

So, I'm guessing it's either SD, Rachel, ungodly-child, or maybe Sharon.

But, ungodly-child would be my first choice, for we definitely know she was married 5 times.

Am I close?</font>

[smyrna]

Ter,

Aw, now Ter, I'm not surprised that you guessed it!

You win? But hey, you already have a picture of the Chapel!

Oh well, how about this:

We pool our money, and whenever one of us wins, we send it to the SC aviation fuel fund.

I do have one question about Godchild's ex: Did he try on any of that sacred Mormon underwear?
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

Now she also said that the "light-in-the-loafers"
guy who is going to a Christian college is even closer than her ex to her. I guess that can mean her own son? Maybe a nephew?

In any case, what a dysfunctional family!

Maybe they can have their own reality show!

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Oh goodie!! I won!

Hey, I'm in for sending extra money for aviation fuel!!

Quote:
I do have one question about Godchild's ex: Did he try on any of that sacred Mormon underwear?</font>

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[franklin]

For any of the so called non SCers like xman or dowen who read this......

What say you now about these cultee's behavior. Is this eloquence and purity of spirit. Is this Christian what you read above?????????

All of the high praise you have written about the SCers is out the window now!

Are you going to just look the other way, have selective forgetfulness about this?

Or are you going to speak against what you read above and those who wrote it?

If not what does that make you?

The moderator of factnet should delete this thread and ban the writers of it......

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Franklin,

Then you should have that post deleted at CB, for that is where it is posted. Don't you agree?

Here is the link in case you can't find it:
http://www.cultbusters.com.au/index.php?topic=408.msg13516;topicseen#new

All Smyrna did was copy part of her post. He didn't make any of it up now did he?</font>

[franklin]

No excuse. No excuse at all. Why are you bringing up anything about anybody's personal life here on factnet. It was not written on factnet by her for other factnet readers to read. You had to go outside factnet to dig up personal information about a Christian who is active in exposing your racist cult. This is more than enough reason for both of you to be banned. Neither of you have the character or the public civility, decency to be allowed on a public forum.

Neither of you have the character or the public civility, decency to have the gall to call yourselves Christians.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Franklin go read the thread "A Question for Ungodly-child" and tell me what you think. OK?</font>

[smyrna]

Hey Frankie,

Godchild knows we scan the posts at CB. So she screws up every time she gives personal info about herself, especially hilarious stuff like we read above. Look at the 'net as a whole.

Also, Godchild takes stuff from The Season and posts it over here, personal stuff she finds there about Ter and others.

Of course, you don't think that is wrong, but since it's one of your followers, you have a problem with it, hypocrisy as usual.

We don't need no stinking excuses, Frankie!

[franklin]

It's wrong no matter who does it.

If gc wanted factnet readers to know about that she would have posted it here herself. You had no right to post it here.

But you are a big problem because you have used the user names of getagrip and saygoodnightgracie to extort and intimidate people by insinuating threats to reveal personal information about them on factnet. Like calling me names I have never used on a public forum.

Is there any evil deed that is too low you won't go to to kiss arnie's butt? I don't think there is. Your soul belongs to arnie.

I do not consider gc to be a cyberstalker. I hope she does not post anything personal about anyone here. There is no place for those tactics by anyone.

But you are a cyberstalker, cyberbully who should have been banned from factnet long ago like you have been banned from many public forums before. What you do is EVIL!

As evil as the racism you preach!

To you I say "Get me behind me Satan!"

[smyrna]

"It's wrong no matter who does it."

Well, then you messed up big time by not saying anything to Godchild when she did it.

"If gc wanted factnet readers to know about that she would have posted it here herself. You had no right to post it here."

Like I said, we Factnet readers can easily go and read the threads at CB. It's kind of like the newspapers, Frankie. You can read something in Detroit, and also in Miami. One you make something public, it's going to get disseminated.

"But you are a big problem because you have used the user names of getagrip and saygoodnightgracie"

You forgot Bruno, you can't keep your stories straight, and you have no proof.

"Is there any evil deed that is too low you won't go to to kiss arnie's butt?"

What does Godchild's ex's adventures in underwear have to do with Pastor Murray?

"I do not consider gc to be a cyberstalker. I hope she does not post anything personal about anyone here. There is no place for those tactics by anyone."

Too late, Glen. She already has.

"To you I say "Get me behind me Satan!"

Since you never challenged "illogical_al" I'm not sure you even believe in satan. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[bluewater2]

I love it when Christian beat up Christians. So Christ like.

[franklin]

More like racist Jew hating pagans attacking Christians.

But no matter what goes on at factnet no one is going to abandon God to be like you.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lame.gif

[bluewater2]

What am I like, Franklin? What do you see? I am curious. You seem to have alot of opinions about people here. Based on what you know about me, what can you say?

[franklin]

I have the same number of opinions about life in general as you do. Enjoy them!

[smyrna]

Hi folks!

It's time for another edition of: Guess Who!!!!!!!!

Ok ready?

Here is the post, Guess Who? posted it:

Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 6:09 pm:

"It might seem "vaguely" gay to you, but not as blatantly gay and disgusting as your activities with your orangutan Clyde."

Ok, let's see which one of you can identify who posted that very vile comment!

Oh, the prize: A Strong's Concordance!

Good Luck!

[franklin]

That was me and I do not want your strongs concordance. Don't need another man to tell me what the Bible says. Holy Spirit does that.

What does any of these vicious attacks have to do with the fact that Eve is the mother of all living, all races descended from her and that Adam is the father of Cain and that your cult leader arnie is a racist heretic?

[smyrna]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

Ok, congratulations, Frankie!

I'll just donate the money to the SC aviation fuel fund.

Thank you for your donation!

[smyrna]

"That was me and I do not want your strongs concordance. Don't need another man to tell me what the Bible says. Holy Spirit does that.'

Oh yeah? You forgot to include that onehumanrace.com does that for you too, eh, Frankie?

The Jewish sages also tell you that it was snake eggs that Genesis 3:15 was talking about, huh, Frankie?
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Oh why?

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Not much of that here as anyone can see.

I'd have to agree with Bluewater's sarcasm towards the mentality involved in all of this "persoanl nonsense".

If this represents Christ why would Bluewater want anything to do with Him?
(Am I correct in my memory that Bluewater is not a follower of Christ?)

He can see the obvious difference in what the Word says Christians should be like and how they actually behave.
Can we blame his rejection ,based on this Godless attitude he observes which is presented in our saviours name?

Truth is tough to swallow as is "pride".

</font>}

[smyrna]

Lighten up, Dave.

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
That's what I like about God's Word.
It never returns "void".

</font>}

[oneway]

david_munson,

Do you know what the majority of the problem is in here? I would be pretty willing to bet that you might agree with some of my assessment.
No one in here really wants to change the way they act and treat others in here. I'm talking about everyone, the detractors included. Everyone is having too much fun. These threads are primarily a source for entertainment, not edification. And all in the name of Christianity. I'm not innocent here. I've acted the fool in these threads myself. But I've come to a conclusion. What's happening in these threads has become an obsession and far from Christ-like most of the times. An obsession can't be good unless you're obsessed to know who Christ is and what it truly means to be Christ-like.
Of course I might get the argument that this is a cult awareness forum. If you want to get someone out of a cult, you have to love them out of it. Name calling is only going to push then farther into the cult. That only stands to reason. Another thing I've concluded about these scers is, they don't really trust anyone outside of their circle, and with good reason unforunately.
Even if one of these could see the truth that Cain is Adam's son, I'm not sure if the would admit to it. Mainly because of the way they've been treated
by others. I see these scers as being on the defensive. That doesn't excuse the way they act sometimes either, but it does explain quite a bit.
Kind of makes one wonder if they had been continually treated with kindness and respect despite their beliefs, if there would have been any changed hearts and minds?

[dowen]

". I see these scers as being on the defensive. That doesn't excuse the way they act sometimes either, but it does explain quite a bit.
Kind of makes one wonder if they had been continually treated with kindness and respect despite their beliefs, if there would have been any changed hearts and minds?"


The cult hunters really need to read and re-read this.

I believe that one day these "hunters" will have blood on their hands, of not already.

They have so beaten and bloodied the people they claim to want to rescue, that some of them have abandoned Christ entirely, and who knows how many will follow.


Seriously, how many people have been saved from a "cult" by reading GC's insane rants and name calling? I happen to like GC when she is away from FN, but she comes here and comes unglued. As do some SCer's


Take a deep breath everybody!

[smyrna]

"The cult hunters really need to read and re-read this.

I believe that one day these "hunters" will have blood on their hands, of not already."

Good post, Dowen. One of the SC's detractors already invaded the TV studio and disrupted a live boradcast. All of his fellow detractors not only justified it, but went on to claim Pastor Murray and whoever scuffled with that idiot didn't have the right to defend themselves!

I suppose they should have given him the Pastor's chair and let HIM finish the program!
(Yeah, to Kool-aid drinkers: No, it wouldn't have been better if they had let him do that)

Matt Slick at CARM.org described this invasion and scuffle as "a disagreement in a teaching setting."

That's like calling WWII a school yard fistfight.

In the twenty plus years of SC programs, not one SC student has ever been hauled off to jail for disrupting a TV program, no one has ever disturbed another Church service, no one has been arrested for a hate crime and blamed the SC for inciting him, no major media organization or national organization has ever determined that the SC was
responsible or was guilty of inciting racial hate crimes.

But here on the Internet, we have people who do their best to incite hatred towards the Chapel, Arnold Murray and his family,starting closed threads on discussion boards in order to fabricate and promote rumors and false allegations, build websites that contain out and out lies and misrepresentations of Chapel teachings.

Yes, they have already incited some clown to start a disturbance in the SC studio.

I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try to physically attack the Murrays or vandalize the Chapel itself.

These people are lunatics, and it's a good thing most of them are cowards, because they are thankfully too fearful to confront anyone.

Heck, they won't even write letters to the NAACP or some other national group with their "evidence."

[dowen]

Anti cult hysteria is an amazing phenomenon.

The Church I was raised in has been under attack here on FN for several years, and I have watched the attackers go from borderline civility to utter insanity in that short amount of time.

It is like a disease that slowly takes over, and before the attacker knows it he/she has gone from simply having a disagreement to screaming b**** and racist and franticly pounding out thousands of posts dripping with hatred and profanities.

The attackers are sharpening the very pitchforks, inciting the very mob, and lighting the very torches that will one day return upon them, with a vengeance.

[smyrna]

"It is like a disease that slowly takes over, and before the attacker knows it he/she has gone from simply having a disagreement to screaming b**** and racist and franticly pounding out thousands of posts dripping with hatred and profanities."


Yeah, we know. And THEY accuse us of inciting hatred! Go figure.

Hey Dowen, do you still post at CB? If so, you may not be able to after today. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[smyrna]

Censorship! Oh no, not CB!

Dave Munsun will be shocked!

I'm saying it again: that site and the group that inhabits it constitute a cult unto itself.

[skooter942000]

- i will not play this game....

[dowen]

Homestead Heritage.

[stage_director]

Oh. I don't think I've ever heard of that one.

[smyrna]

Dowen,

Feel lucky S_D never heard of the Church you were raised in.

You're not totally safe though. She's probably looking it up right now so she can try and find something discredit it.

She reminds me of some cranky old lady that spies on the neighbors, so she can gossip about them with others, like the 'Gladys' character on the old Bewitched TV show.

[dowen]

Yeah, she could be. All she will find here on FN about them is a bunch of foul minded and self righteous mobsters ganging up on a Church.

Perhaps she will feel at home or perhaps she will see through the accusations and slander.

How much you wanna bet that we will find out?

DOwen.

[smyrna]

Dowen,

You can bet she'll NOT see through the accusations or slander. If anything, she'll make up more of her own.

I wouldn't suggest you waste your time, but you can trust me when I tell you that Stage Director has made numerous accusations about Pastor Murray on these threads, and with only a few exceptions has never provided any proof, even after many attempts by us to get her to offer any evidence.

Here's a couple of them:

She initially claimed that Murray owns FIVE aiplanes he bought with Chapel donations.

She did point us to FAA records about two planes, and that's all that was listed. No proof was offered about how the planed were financed, and I've personally heard Pastor Murray state that one man donated one of the planes.

She claims that one of Pastor Murray's sons is a drunk. Absolutely no proof or source of that accusation was ever posted.

She claims that a local Arkansas newspaper is CURRENTLY writing articles about an investigation of possible abuse of Chapel funds by the Murrays. When challenged for proof, she offered references to articles that were as old as thirteen years, and were about general tax treatment of religious organization assets.

She also claimed that the Chapel only holds two services per month, and that's only so they can stay tax exempt. Both are lies, she can't prove otherwise.

Now she's posting what she claims are verbatim portions of tapes published by the SC from the 1980s! No new stuff, just old stuff she has some problem with, or invents some problem. Who knows, and who really cares.

She actually thinks she can discredit the Chapel with stunts like this.

Hey, remember when Bush ran for president the first time? His enemies claimed he snorted cocaine at Camp David when his dad was president. They claimed he didn't spend any time in the Air National Guard.

Dan Rather lost his job eventually because of the lies, and Bush became president, and re-elected.

Chicago Cardinal Bernadine before his death was accused of having molested a young man 20 years ago at the time he made the allegation.

The accuser later stated that he had lied, and made the accusation hoping he'd get money out of the Church, to pay for his AIDS treatments.

You just never know why these people lie, but they do lie, and that's a fact.

[smyrna]

"I've actually posted documentation and bible scripture to support what I say."

Hey, I didn't know you can get FAA records, State licenses of individuals, real estate records, out of the Bible!

Let me guess: you use Bible Codes? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

"To date on this forum I don't recall seeing any proof at all you're even familiar with a bible verse "..

Smyrna: I guess you forgot about blowing the Ruth material. She was an Israelite.

"For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever ***loveth and maketh a lie.***" Rev. 22:15

"...all you seem to do is talk trash and try to deflect any critique of Shepherd's Chapel using the above methods."

Smyrna: Well of course I'm going to deflect your critiques, that are full of your
accusations, diversions, ad hominems, wild guesses and outright whoppers .. you don't think I'd let you get away with that do you?

[stage_director]

Ezr 9:1-2
1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, [doing] according to their abominations, [even] of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, THE MOABITES, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of [those] lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.

Ruth was a Moabite.

Rth 1:3-4
3 And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.
4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one [was] Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

Sidenote: "The family, compelled to emigrate to Moab through pressure of a famine, settled for several years in that country. After the death of their father, the two sons married Moabite women. This was a violation of the Mosaic law ( Deu 7:3 23:3 Ezr 9:2 Neh 13:23 ); and Jewish writers say that the early deaths of both the young men were divine judgments inflicted on them for those unlawful connections." - R. Jamieson

Rth 1:8
8 And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.

Sidenote: In Israel it was considered the father's house, even if he were deceased. The House of David was never the House of Bathsheba ... nor the House of Israel, the House of Rebekah.

Rth 1:9-10
9 The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each [of you] in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.
10 And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto THY PEOPLE.

Rth 1:15-16
15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto HER PEOPLE, and unto HER GODS: return thou after thy sister in law.
16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, [or] to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people [shall be] my people, and THY GOD MY GOD:

"a friend, a Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, whose father, Elimelech, had settled in the land of Moab. On the death of Elimelech and Mahlon, Naomi came with Ruth, her daughter-in-law, who refused to leave her, to Bethlehem, the old home from which Elimelech had migrated. There she had a rich relative, Boaz, to whom Ruth was eventually married. She became the mother of Obed, the grandfather of David. Thus Ruth, a Gentile, is among the maternal progenitors of our Lord ( Mat 1:5). The story of "the gleaner Ruth illustrates the friendly relations between the good Boaz and his reapers, the Jewish land system, the method of transferring property from one person to another, the working of the Mosaic law for the relief of distressed and ruined families; but, above all, handing down the unselfishness, the brave love, the unshaken trustfulness of her who, though not of the chosen race, was, like the Canaanitess Tamar ( Gen 38:29; Mat 1:3) and the Canaanitess Rahab ( Mat 1:5), privileged to become the ancestress of David, and so of 'great David's greater Son'" ( Rth 4:18-22)." - Easton's Bible Dictionary

[smyrna]

Rage Director is incapable of putting together a study:

Let's allow the readers to decide:

http://www.israelofgod.org/ruth.htm

[smyrna]

From the above link:

The Solutions

We should closely take notice that in Numbers 25 we see the direct result of breaking the law. Are we to believe that later on this law is “suspended” for Mahlon and then Boaz, which would also mean it was suspended for Naomi, her husband, and all who welcomed Ruth into Judah? Considering the death of 23,000 Israelites that resulted from their law breaking, might it be somewhat still in the memory and history of Naomi, her husband, her sons, and Boaz and even his near kin?

Therefore, let’s look a little closer at what is really stated in the book of Ruth.

Ruth 1:1 ¶ Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

First of all, the use of the word “country” must be understood both by definition and also by context. The Hebrew word translated to “country” here is one that simply means or refers to “the country” as in a rural area or field, not a “nation.” For one example we can look at:

1Sa 27:5 And David said unto Achish, If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them give me a place in some town in the country <07704>, that I may dwell there: for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee?

Notice that the “town” is “in” the country, as opposed to a major city in a metropolitan area. As a result of this we now have absolutely no reason to assume that “the country of Moab” was “the nation of Moab.” Nor do we have any reason to claim that the “plains of Moab” were “in” the nation of Moab, the location of which we previously addressed.

Next, we can note that the time period is one where-in Israel’s tribes were not yet unified into a Federalist single nation or kingship, but were independently ruled by judges, each with jurisdiction in their own tribe and not beyond or overlapping into other tribes.

Continuing, we see that Naomi’s husband was from Judah, and a town called Bethlehem. You may have heard of this town before? Thus, Naomi, her husband and her sons, were Israelites of the tribe of Judah, and in the land of Judah.

Putting this all together, with what we have so far, leaves us with Naomi and her family escaping the famine by traveling to a place identified as “the fields of Moab,” which then equates better to “the plains of Moab,” which were in Reubenite and Gadite possession and inheritance. Thus, Ruth, in the land of her nativity (Ruth 2:11), was either Reubenite or Gadite.


But Wait! There’s More!

One more “problem” to solve! Was Ruth and her sister a pagan worshipper, or a worshipper of the One True God?

[smyrna]

A funny thing happened on the way to English from the Hebrew. We, in English, have a culture or cultural thinking that “god,” from the Hebrew word “elohiym,” must always refer to a deity of some sort, whether real or imagined (pagan, etc.). Thus, we can only perceive “elohiym” as either the God, or a “god” (as in false “god”). However, the facts are that “elohiym” can, and often is, used to identify a human being, too! Please do your own research on this if you wish. You may also peruse a number of the related articles on the Israel of God website (www.israelofgod.org (http://www.israelofgod.org)) that relate to the use of “elohiym” in the bible.

What happens if we now put everything into the newly understood context- one that has no biblical contradictions and complies with the stated law of God?

Ruth 1:15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.

16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

Now, finally, we can see that what the translators created in error is solved and resolved in truth. The references to “elohiym” in verses 15 and 16 are addressing their respective governments of the day, their “Judges”, who were known as “elohiym”. The “capitalization” of “G” in God in verse 16 is a translators doing, not the Hebrew’s.

The “her people” was either Reuben or Gad, and the “my people” was Judah. The “her gods” was simply the judges in Reuben or Gad, and the “thy God my God,” becomes “your judges my judges.” Now, the additional comment by Ruth in verse 17 makes even more sense as she invokes the name of the “G”od of Israel, Yahweh, something not likely by an alien, but totally expected from a law abiding Israelite.

What other “assumptions” have we made in what we think the bible “says”? You might be surprised!

Richard Fix

August 2005

Special Appreciation is given to RK Phillips for his work in documenting and identifying what some have suspected and most never knew.

[stage_director]

Oh Smyrna ... do you think I don't know you just did an article search until you found someone to agree with you?

So this guy represents what you believe is truth, huh? I really enjoyed his commentary on Esther ... Of course, he claims Esther was a "real Jew" (called her a Royal Queen) while Murray teaches she was an imposter Kenite ...

So ... which one of them do you think is correct? ;-)

[angie0401]

s_d said:the brave love, the unshaken trustfulness of her who, though not of the chosen race, was, like the Canaanitess Tamar ( Gen 38:29; Mat 1:3) and the Canaanitess Rahab ( Mat 1:5), privileged to become the ancestress of David, and so of 'great David's greater Son'" ( Rth 4:18-22)." - Easton's Bible Dictionary

But, GlennFranklin said there is no **chosen race**. How does one resolve this dilemma? Whom to believe??
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Oneway,
that is one of the strongest arguements that i make.
How we show the character that is within us?

Do we show Christ or flesh?
Regardless of doctrine character is what reveals the contents of the heart.
If it is filled with the Spirit,the character of Christ will shine forth.

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Wraps it into one simple package doesn't it?
This is the test of our character.
</font>}

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Oneway,
that is one of the strongest arguements that i make.
How we show the character that is within us?

Do we show Christ or flesh?
Regardless of doctrine character is what reveals the contents of the heart.
If it is filled with the Spirit,the character of Christ will shine forth.

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Wraps it into one simple package doesn't it?
This is the test of our character.
</font>}}}

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Oneway,

You said:
If you want to get someone out of a cult, you have to love them out of it. Name calling is only going to push then farther into the cult. That only stands to reason.


First of all, none of us are in a cult...lol There is no control whatsoever going on through the airwaves..lol Not unless PM can some how use telepathy, via the airwaves..lol

We don't need any saving from a cult.

Quote:
Another thing I've concluded about these scers is, they don't really trust anyone outside of their circle, and with good reason unforunately.

Yes we do. Now if you're talking about gc and Franklin, they are a different story. They come across as nutcases..lol We have quite a few friends from FN whom are not SC students.

Quote:
Even if one of these could see the truth that Cain is Adam's son, I'm not sure if the would admit to it. Mainly because of the way they've been treated
by others.

Don't you think that comment is abit condesending? Even if you didn't mean it that way, I take offense to it.

Who says we don't see the truth, the FN gang? Like anyone's opinion here really matters. At least we can back up our position with Scripture and not just spouting out opinions.

And if we are mistaken, we would be the first ones to admit it. All of us have heard most of the teachings all of our lives as those which are brought here and else where. All of us have come from being in a position, having to admit that our understanding was wrong, especially when we were presented with unrefutable evidence. We are about what God's word truly says and we are only worried about pleasing God, not man.

If I was wrong in my understanding, I would not hold onto it just because it's more acceptable to people.

Quote:
I see these scers as being on the defensive.

Not from everyone, only the nutcases and those who falsely accuse.

Quote:
That doesn't excuse the way they act sometimes either, but it does explain quite a bit.

We all fall short, us and the detractors. Thank goodness for repentance.

Quote:
Kind of makes one wonder if they had been continually treated with kindness and respect despite their beliefs, if there would have been any changed hearts and minds?

We are not here to win any kind of popularity contest, nor is God's truth about being popular. We could care less about what others think of us.</font>

Amo 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

<font color="0000ff">In order for this to be true, and we know God's word is true, the majority cannot be right.

Ps. I think you made this post out of true concern and a sincere heart, but....there is an air of superiority to it which I do not like. But no matter, all of you are free to think what you want. It doesn't matter to me or my other brethren in the Lord. We are about what our Lord thinks and that's it.</font> http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[angie0401]

Great post ter! I agree completely.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[smyrna]

Thread bumped, so Stage Director can see how she disappears when she is proven wrong.

It is typical behavior for detractors to do so.

[stage_director]

QUOTE
so Stage Director can see how she disappears when she is proven wrong
END QUOTE

Well, you'd need to prove me wrong first, sport, before we could test that theory. ;-)

[smyrna]

I already proved it. I proved Ruth was an Israelite, and you couldn't handle the truth. You never offered any rebuttal to prove your contention.

There's much more evidence, it's not just about being wrong, but being challenged as to where your proof is for the many allegations you have made where you have not offered proof.

But, hey, it's your credibility that suffers here, not mine.

You never addressed Angie's post 43 either, because she challenged you and you just bolted.

But like I said, it's no surprise. It's typical.

[stage_director]

QUOTE
I already proved it. I proved Ruth was an Israelite, and you couldn't handle the truth. You never offered any rebuttal to prove your contention.
END QUOTE

I showed she wasn't and that your reasoning is flawed. So what's there to rebut?

[smyrna]

I don't know where you allegedly "showed" that she was not an Israelite. It certainly isn't on this thread or any others that are here.

Since you find it so difficult to scroll up to my post to see the TRUTH, here it is again, and then I'll post your "rebuttal", to show you are lying:

smyrna
Senior Member
Username: smyrna

Post Number: 2719

Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 9:30 pm:

A funny thing happened on the way to English from the Hebrew. We, in English, have a culture or cultural thinking that “god,” from the Hebrew word “elohiym,” must always refer to a deity of some sort, whether real or imagined (pagan, etc.). Thus, we can only perceive “elohiym” as either the God, or a “god” (as in false “god”). However, the facts are that “elohiym” can, and often is, used to identify a human being, too! Please do your own research on this if you wish. You may also peruse a number of the related articles on the Israel of God website (www.israelofgod.org (http://www.israelofgod.org)) that relate to the use of “elohiym” in the bible.

What happens if we now put everything into the newly understood context- one that has no biblical contradictions and complies with the stated law of God?

Ruth 1:15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law.

16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

Now, finally, we can see that what the translators created in error is solved and resolved in truth. The references to “elohiym” in verses 15 and 16 are addressing their respective governments of the day, their “Judges”, who were known as “elohiym”. The “capitalization” of “G” in God in verse 16 is a translators doing, not the Hebrew’s.

The “her people” was either Reuben or Gad, and the “my people” was Judah. The “her gods” was simply the judges in Reuben or Gad, and the “thy God my God,” becomes “your judges my judges.” Now, the additional comment by Ruth in verse 17 makes even more sense as she invokes the name of the “G”od of Israel, Yahweh, something not likely by an alien, but totally expected from a law abiding Israelite.

What other “assumptions” have we made in what we think the bible “says”? You might be surprised!

Richard Fix

Now, here's Stage Director's "proof":

stage_director
Intermediate Member
Username: stage_director

Post Number: 125

Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 10:55 pm:

-------------------------------------------------
Oh Smyrna ... do you think I don't know you just did an article search until you found someone to agree with you?

So this guy represents what you believe is truth, huh? I really enjoyed his commentary on Esther ... Of course, he claims Esther was a "real Jew" (called her a Royal Queen) while Murray teaches she was an imposter Kenite ...

Smyrna See, Stage Director completly changes the subject, and then claims that is her "proof" that Ruth was not an Israelite.

Can anyone else show me where Stage Director "proved" Ruth was not an Israelite, between my post and hers, or even after?

Hell, she couldn't even address the subject she switched to with anything substantive!

The only thing Stage Director has proved is that Godchild can be cloned!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif