----- Original Message -----

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 3:49 AM

Subject: Question re: SCN

Paul

I’ve been reading your website - I listen to  Dr. Murray almost nightly.  I don’t consider myself religious and most devout Christians would probably not put me in their ranks.   I like SCN because – while it does not 100% address all my concerns of organized religion, at LEAST Dr. Murray is trying to square what he knows about the Bible with our known scientific knowledge….  Example - The earth is millions of years old.    He may not be  “right on” but at least he’s making sense and backing it up with some credible research.  I like that.    Personally,   I was raised a Methodist and I question practically everything about organized faiths ( all of them).  I figure we’ll know soon enough  - until then  I  try to live the “10 Commandments”,   I do try to repent when I screw up,  and I feel there’s a higher power at work.

The reason I’m writing – even though I’m not a  hardcore follower myself – I find some of your allegations against SCN  somewhat disturbing – not because you’re not  taking what Dr. Murray says as  Biblical fact or questioning him… but because you know him personally but have not gone to speak with him about your concerns.     He certainly seems like a  100% straight-shooter (which is why I keep listening to him).   

So my question to you - Have you tried to contact him and  sit  one-to-one  and work through your concerns ?   If you have and he refused – that’s one thing.  But if you haven’t but you’re still at odds, then I’d encourage you to do that.   I’d like to know his response.

Warmest regards

Name Withheld

PS -  I’ve been married for 27 years and live a pretty ‘normal’ life.  I honestly have never concluded that he “Jews” as we know them today are the Kinites Dr. Murray talks about.    I’ve heard that charge before and if true – it does spin a racist tone on much of his teachings, but I’ve just never thought of it that way.  Murray seems to be a staunch defender of Israel, always goes out of his way to commend diversity,  etc etc.  I just don’t believe that he is  a racist or tries to advance a white supremacist  agenda  in the slightest.  He (and Dennis) both bristle whenever they are accused of racism,  and they certainly have a diverse congregation.   I hope they are not racist.

++ ============================ ++

      Name Withheld,  Position Withheld

      Business Name Withheld

      Address Line 1 Withheld

      Address Line 2 Withheld

      Phone Number Withheld

      Email Address Withheld

++ ============================ ++

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:09 PM

Subject: Re: Question re: SCN

Personally, I find attempts to "square the bible"  with what is known by science to be a mistake.  The bible either says what it says, or we are going to be constantly adjusting it to "square."  Intellectually that seems to me to be a very hazardous way to approach an historical document.  The men who wrote the bible did not have access to the scientific knowledge that we have, so to try to alter the meaning of what they were trying to communicate in order to create some sort of accord between modern science and ancient prophets strikes me as a bad idea.  Why not then also square what Jesus taught with modern social mores and modern philosophy?  Actually, that is precisely what happens every day.  Puppet Jesus, Puppet bible, contorting itself to the will of the voice that speaks in its name. 

 

I think there is room in the bible for the Earth to be extremely old or to have multiple ages.  But the fact is, that the bible was not written to convey that kind of information.  The bible is not a scientific book intended to tell us how old the earth is, and I don't look to the bible to explain the mechanics of the universe.  The bible is written to teach us the "mechanics" of how to be like Christ, it is not really trying to tell us anything about scientific knowledge.  It may obliquely convey some knowledge that may fit into a scientific understanding of the universe, but that is not the purpose of the bible.

 

To try to pull scientific knowledge out of the bible is like trying to pull the knowledge of biblical salvation from a fossil bed.  That, and we end up reading into the bible the scientific understanding we obtained elsewhere.  I mean that, isolated from scientific knowledge, if you didn't already have in your mind the idea that the earth was billions of years old, you would not come across that knowledge in the bible, you can only find it by "trying" to find it after you already have the idea that "it should be there."  It is one of my criticisms of Murray, he teaches the bible according to what he things it ought to say, instead of letting the bible teach him and conveying that information to others.  It is not good, when if we do not understand the bible,  we then correct the bible to accord with our understanding, I am not a fan of that practice, nor of the pervasive (and nearly unconscious) philosophy that the acceptability of an idea to the human mind is the measure of the truth of all things that drives it(the practice). I love the bible and I love science, I do not try to square the two because they are not really related.

 

On to your main point, first of all, I do not really "know" Arnold Murray and I'm quite certain he would not know me (unless perhaps if people are complaining about me to him).  I met him a few times when my wife and I stayed down in Arkansas in 1995.  He did not really ever talk to me, we had a few words as he signed my marriage certificate, but I initiated all the talk. I figured he was a busy man.  But since that time I have come to think that his whole "I'm a loner" thing is unacceptable.  I'm a busy man, Name Withheld,  a very busy man, I have seven kids, and a whole mess of irons in the fire.  But when people write me I try to answer them individually and give them the personal attention human beings made in the image of God warrant, for good or ill.  To be nice or to be severe.  To whom, much is given much is required. I try to give myself to people who come to me to talk to me, a man of God I love taught me that. 

 

I have had this question before.  People feel that I ought to "go to my brother," it is like you are concerned for me and whether I might not be doing something low-down (and I don't mean that in any but the most grateful spirit, I appreciate your kindness in writing me)  but Arnold has not sinned against me personally.  If that was the case, then it would be appropriate for me to go to him man to man first.  Folks have suggested that I have some sort of grudge against him, but that is absolutely not the case, I have nothing personal against him, I do not regret buying all the cassettes and books, he was my bible teacher, the only bible teacher I ever had and a heck of a lot cheaper than a seminary or university education, even if it was just as misleading.

 

He is teaching these things publicly and in public is where I will rebuke him. Jesus himself rebuked the scribes an Pharisees openly because of their doctrines. Arnold himself openly rebukes "revolving revs."  and denominations and one-verse Charlie's,  I wonder how many of them he first went to personally to let them know the error of their ways? Arnold has been at this a long time, and he may have heard about me, I don't know, but he has publicly expressed his contempt for critics, (while playing the part of a critic with his other face)  

He has a question and answer period on his broadcast, he does not answer all questions.  Those questions are "hand-picked."  They certainly are.  He has been weathering the storm for so many years,  he has had enough rebuke, public and private. The Chapel does not answer critics, just do a little research, the researchers send letters, they make phone calls to the chapel, they attempt to approach him in person, but the chapel directs all of them to their statement of faith, he never responds, it is documented. Arnold Murray is not accepting rebukes at this time, thank you.. 

And, besides, I'm not so arrogant as to think all he needs is the great and powerful Paul Stringini to come along and set him straight.  I do this for people, not for Murray, and I am going to them personally, just like I am talking to you now. 

 

Here is another matter:

 

I have never had occasion to go to Arkansas since 1995.  When I came back to Chicago from the chapel in 1995 I had made contacts with other SCN students and through those contacts I met another young man, Old Friend's Name Withheld.  This guy was probably the most dedicated student of the Chapel I had ever met, he had a Massora, a real honest to goodness Massora, just like Dr. Murray talked about. I don't want to tell a long story here but I have a point to make here. A year ago he was at the Passover meeting and afterwards he went down to the Chapel and asked Arnold for some counseling. Arnold doesn't do counseling after Passover, Old Friend should have known that, but Old Friend has been diagnosed with schizophrenia,  I never felt threatened by this guy, we had lots of arguments over the three year period of our association. And as hot as it got I never felt like he was going to do something violent or dangerous.  Anyway, that week at the chapel Old Friend got into trouble because he asked about the Chapel's teaching on "Adultery"  which only "deeper students"  will know means "to put cream in your coffee"  or mix races.  He had married a woman of mixed race and he was feeling some trepidation about it.  Old Friend had been a student for over twenty years, he had given them a copy of the Massora, and that is no small feat because the Massora is a huge volume and (was at that time) very hard to find.  Well, when none of the men down there would talk to him about it he asked one of the ladies (it was actually one of Murray's Granddaughters)  and that started the trouble.  Actually, I'm not totally clear on this.  But among the things that happened to Old Friend , that week, this is the one that that really gets me.  He was going to the chapel to watch the broadcast and Arnold met him at the door, and said something like, "No, son, you aren't going down today (the studio is downstairs) Today you are on guard duty, I want you to stand guard right here at the door and if anyone who looks like you tries to get in, you stop them!"  There is your "straight shooter" The end up was he got arrested for criminal trespassing and because he was denied his medication down in the Benton county Jail, he wound up turning a 30 day lockup into 3-4 months of mostly solitary confinement.  And no one from the chapel came and checked up on the sick man they had imprisoned.  While he was in jail, all his possessions were auctioned off because they were in storage, including about $20k worth of bible related books, including his own copy of the Massora.  When he got in touch with me last fall, he told me he was no longer a Christian. (Editorial comment: And Old Friend has since got in touch with me again to tell me he is back to being a Chapel student, and that I had better be careful about my website.  And I still believe he would not hurt a fly, he just meant that the Father is probably not happy with me going after the Chapel.  That's fine,  I fear God but not Chapel students, they are not really the violent types, mean, yes, nasty yes, violent, no, they figure God will fix my wagon good.)

 

 The point; I don't expect that to be "convincing" to you.  It is not meant to, what I just wrote is a mess, I can't put what I heard him say into a coherent narrative at this time.  It doesn't matter because that is not the point.  I have been talking with my friend about making a video interview where he would tell everything that happened to him at the Chapel.  If that happens, then I think it would be entirely appropriate to send a copy to the Chapel and give them an opportunity to respond before releasing it publicly.  I think that would actually be good.

 

Is Arnold really a straight shooter?  "I never beg for money." He says.  Sure he never "begs"  for money, he merely "asks" for donations.  He is constantly asking for money, he is just playing semantic games with "beg"  And many like things he does, that is just a single example.  Watch him more carefully and you will see more.

 

In regards to your PS.  That is more of why I say he is not such a straight shooter.  He says that stuff so that people won't get turned off to his broadcast it is similar to his reversal on the Trinity.  I think he loves his own success more than he loves the things he once held dear and true.  So maybe, for whatever reason he has changed his tune on unpopular doctrines.  That does not exactly make him a hero in my eyes.  But because of the secrecy, and because he never outright repudiates what he used to teach and (I have a special page of audio clips for that) I don't really know what to make of Arnold talking about "Diversity"  Like I say, I have not listened to him since a few years after I got married.  But the core of his teaching remains the same, Serpent seed = flesh and blood offspring of the devil, etc, and if he is playing nice on TV about the Jews, it only shows me what success can to to a man's principles, because it is easier for me to believe that he is playing nice and a sort of "covert activity"  he had a tape on that subject.  Arnold is not at all shy about playing deceitful with "the enemy" and that can end up being anyone who doesn't love what he says.

 

Anyway, I have to go, if there is anything further I can do for you, or if I missed some point on which you had hoped I would comment, please feel obliged to write me back, I don't like leaving a job 90% done, but I'm going to leave that determination to you.  Thanks for writing, it was very good to hear from you.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini