Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page

Shepherd's Chapel Student Accuses Me of Infiltration and Sycophantism Against Arnold Murray's Inner Circle,

Posted Out of Order - Because He Didn't Believe I Would Post It

17 Year Chapel Student Does His Best To Discredit Me Exclusively Through False Insinuation, Personal Insult, and Slander,

 Says He Fears I may Blaspheme If We Discuss Scripture, So He Gallantly Refuses All Attempts on My Part To Make this  Biblical Discussion.

Question/Comment:

My First Response:

Emailer's First Reply:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 9:01 PM

Subject: Re: Thank You for the uplift! !!

 Hello Paul Stringini of rural Northwest Illinois with a wife of more than 17 years Katie, 7 kids at least, and modest white home,

 

    Hey man, I feel like you're the one gettin ugly here.... everything I've expressed has been jovial.  I discern no small amount of angst at your end.  And if you do post our dialogue, based on what I've seen so far, I don't expect you'd exercise the intellectual honesty to include all the posts anyway.  In your present position, I'd be more concerned with "a little bird telling the matter", and finding my "stuff" broadcast as a teaching tool sometime.....  let alone the arguable copyright infringement.  That's right slick, The Chapel had need to protect themselves legally after 1996.

    Did you ever finish the lecture where a particular "pastor" gave an interview for a newspaper on HOW to PURPOSELY obfuscate the 2nd coming to his own congregation rather than teach it ?  Even funnier than your particular syndrome.  Of course, Pastor Murray wasn't exactly gentle with the rebuke.  But one fella in the studio couldn't contain his laughter.  It's all about the Word, Paul, not Pastor Murray or the church so you're probably pretty safe.  He doesen't single out individuals or churches by name, right?  But I believe for the sake of the unsuspecting he could possibly be moved by The Spirit to give warning with a clown's" initials".  I sure wouldn't risk that kind of exposure.  You got it so that when I plant seeds ACCORDING TO THE WORD, the folks who take their 1st step can find your stuff 6 links down the list.....with all due respect you're a babbler nesting in the branches, picking off those good seeds before they sprout as they were intending.  Deveope your own church on the merit of your own ability, Paul, not on the coat-tails of the successful ones, using a twisted logic of saving folks from the same mistake you claim to have made.  That's a punk that does that.  I'd be wise enough to yank that whole section of my website, with a HUMBLE explanation to my followers, before the worry of getting served gave me an ulcer.  You use the Shepherds Chapel domain name, pictures, and qualify yourself as possesing virtually all their teaching tools, with the apperatus in place to take donations!!!  Scary!!!!   But what do I know, RIGHT?                

 

Now, on to the fun with parts of your response. 

 

  1)  Do you not understand the phrase "sour grapes"?.... wikipedia doggone it !!!; time facts have no relevance to the phrase here.  You should be able to find some wonderful remedial reading products online along with similar mathematics products because,..... 

  

   2)  I typed "SOME" 3 years, allowing that you may not have started your association with the church on 1/1/93, and ended it on 12/31/96; 4 actual years.  3 years fits handily within 4, so I was being expedient in the midst of an hysteria induced hernia  Going by your response, you did EXACTLY that, or else you're rounding up by as much as 364 days.  I might actually BE a genius now that I see how eloquently I dealt with that.  I I I, me me me.  Now re-read your stuff!!!!!  Laughing again.  Thanks again.

  

  3 )  I'm so unimpressed by your little episodes of infiltration and close contact with the church.  It's in character with folks who would spend thousands of dollars on almost everything in the house, and then learn just enough to start stealing sheep.  But, you do even more with the interNET, the  world wide WEB; you use the afforementioned tools of micro-clips and adroit pretext to accomplish the theft, and claim to be sparing the unsuspecting.  I on the other hand, have bloomed where I was planted 17 years ago, and am well known and aquainted with the family and long term employees..... every bit as welcome now, as then.  They are in my heart as family.  You must've been one of those clingy, hero worshipping sycophants that ulitimately went off on a "TARE" when you're fruit was recognized. Typical.  Sour grapes/bitter wheat.     

 

 4)  I'm too busy these days to keep enertaining myself with your ranting demagoguery.  I'll be sure to tip my waiter.

 

  5th smooth stone)  Book of Jude if you've gotten there yet.....' the Lord rebuke thee'.                      WAITER!.......Check please!!  

 

Emailer's Second Reply of the Day:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 9:46 PM

Subject: Re: Thank You for the uplift! !!

STOP IT BRO.....YOU'RE KILLING ME!!!!   He's secretive on T.V.????  What color is the sky in the world you live in, really.  I think I'll stop here because you might in truth be limited by a debilitating  chemical imbalance as a result of the drugs you confess to.  And I'm sure the Lord would frown on me for that.  But in as much as you've seen fit to set up a website  with Shepherd's Chapel domain name, complete with pictures, expressing ties inimate enough for him to perform your wedding, qualifying yourself with almost all the available study tools, and then set up the 501(c)( 3) tax exemption for religious non-profit organizations complete with the apperatus to collect donations under the auspices of schismatic incongruancies but with the more provable burden of appearing to have infiltrated and infringed (long inhale),  I figured I'd have a little fun with ya.  You did legally incorporate yourself under the tax exemption in Illinois. didnt you?  Well any way, you made me laugh probably as hard as the drugs used to do for you.

 

Emailer's Third Reply of the Day:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:41 PM

Subject: i was concerned only with your...

use of the church's name at first, and for the 1st time was moved to contact one of the sites that do what you do.  I did also go look at a couple areas of your site and shook my head at the fact that you invite challenges on the internet , with no long steps between your family and the television audience; particularly on the subject of religion, and don't have the wherewithal to protect your family by maintaining some discretion.  I was raised in a law enforcement family..... public figures without some security in place have always kept there head down as much as is necessary to protect their loved ones while administering their office or whatever.  Get your head straight in that department alone, please.  The Chapel has HUGE exposure to all kooks in the world, but does so with a certain level of vigilance towards security.  Then there you go calling it secretive, and plaster all the info a kook would need to do you hurt as close to that exposure as you can get.  Not wise my friend.  And if you think,... 'The Lord will protect me cause I answer his call'.... is the answer, then you may be the worst kind of fool.  Being wiser than the serpent is the order of the day.  

  

  Having also a "psych major" in the immediate family, I learned years ago that not many things pull the bent mind out into the world like religion.  An inordinate percentage of psychotics fixate on religion.  No, I'm not pointing the statement at you.  I'm admonishing you to at least put a better wall between that beautiful family, and the kooks you seem set on "inviting."  And NO, that's not meant for Shepherds Chapel students.  I absolutely deliver this final e-mail in brotherly love as with the former ones, honestly.  But you are free to smirk if I tell you I don't wish you Godspeed at this time.  Let's both let each other go in peace.....I'm swamped, and don't need another avenue to pursue.  Peace.  And peace doesn't mean 5 more paragraphs......agreed?...good!

   

My Second Response (Covering Emailer's last three messages):

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 7:28 PM

Subject: Open wide...

xxxxxxx... Unbelievable.

 

Hello Paul Stringini of rural Northwest Illinois with a wife of more than 17 years Katie, 7 kids at least, and modest white home,

 

Out of context this (your) sentence seems innocent enough.  But in context with your other threats it comes off as downright sinister, others will agree, and that is your intent.  You want to show me how vulnerable I am in order to cow me.  I know you are not directly threatening me, but in law enforcement they call this sort of talk "intimidation." Is this your IP address?  XX.XXX.XXX.XX ? I'm not an expert, so that is probably something else, but you can be back traced these days, so keep it civil. 

You can say it is all a laugh and joke about my family, but this is email, I can't read your tone of voice, body language, etc, so I'm not laughing with you, and if you made such remarks to my face, we would have recourse to fisticuffs, I do not pretend to have attained Christ-like status, though I do strive that I might obtain. I am a serious fellow, but imperfect, I'm sorry if in my first message I reduced myself to making jokes with you.  If you bring my family into it again, I will consider it a direct threat. I'm going to let what was said so far pass (especially because of your third email of yesterday), but I will comment and post this on my site for all to see, read on and find out why you will not stop me, unless you ask me. At this point silence is consent.  You must request in writing that this be kept private, and I am not bound to honor your request, but will consider it.

 

You come off like a 30's gangster, "Mr. Stringini, if'n ya don'ts lays off da boss, Mista Murray... somethinks mights happen ta dat sweet litta' fam-ly of yours, see? Some kinda ax-cident...got it?" 

 

It is not at all surprising to me that you would decide that hinting at threats against me and my family was a splendid idea.   You are a bully.  Between you and the less acute ones who rail on me for "hiding who I am" what can I say?  You people are not reasonable. 

 

Hey man, I feel like you're the one gettin ugly here.... everything I've expressed has been jovial.

 

That is not how other folks will see this exchange. You are one of those fellows who is clever enough to engage in viscous repartee and thinly veiled threats, yet lacks the empathy to realize how truly "ugly" his own remarks are.   I have felt nothing lighthearted about any of your insulting remarks.  The laughter in your heart is obviously the laughter of scorn and derision, do you really think I can't see that? Do you really expect me to believe that you do not see it either?

 

I discern no small amount of angst at your end.

 

I'm not a machine.  I'm in touch with my feelings and weaknesses.  If your letter inspired me to be a little more vicious than is my custom (I try to avoid cutting humor, if I failed this time, I repent, you do not know the meaning of open repentance, but only of secret regret), then I admit as much, but you seem but little wounded about me calling you a genius, but I was not being entirely disingenuous, I see you as clever, and reasonably intelligent. You started out with all kinds of remarks against my intelligence, so I grant you the superior position.  You have exhibited yourself as possessed with the spirit of a clever child who delights in tormenting a retarded one, for that is how you have portrayed the conflict from the beginning. Of course I know that is a farce and I should never have played along.

 

This is how you should look at my letter: my writing was in response to you, and you are supposed to be one of God's elect, why would you expect a godly response from someone you take for a servant of evil?  Either an infiltrator or vengeful spurned devotee.  But you, you ought to see in yourself how ungodly you have behaved, but you do not (but you do, don't you? I know you do because you admitted as much, see below..). But for you to claim that your scorn and disdain are merely "jovial" is self justifying self-deception.  I make you angry, and your scorn and disdain are defense mechanisms, which you employ so you can feel good about me.  You put me down and it feels good.  I engaged to reply to your slander.

 

You wanted to share your feelings with me, and I have received them, I hold myself to a higher standard than you hold yourself to.  But you started with mockery scorn and derision.  How nicely am I supposed to receive that?  Have you ever been laughed at in scorn?  If so, Did you like it? I doubt you have experienced that, because you show little empathy  with me as I endure your scorn. 

 

Proverbs 24:9 The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.

 

17 years and you do not yet fear God, I fear for you, not that you might be exposed, but because the wrath of God abides on you. As you later admit, you know he is frowning.  I repent for joking in the least with you.

 

And if you do post our dialogue, based on what I've seen so far, I don't expect you'd exercise the intellectual honesty to include all the posts anyway.

 

I would not alter a syllable.  I'm the most intellectually honest person you have ever encountered in your life. 94.)  "You Are the Fraud!"  One of My Inaccuracies is Pointed Out by a Sharp Shepherd's Chapel Student

 

Do you know how many people say "bet you won't post this" Well, however many, they are all wrong.  They just fail to see how they will appear. You know, if you read some of the conversations I had, you would probably think some of them did a good job.  Though I do not. And I trust my target audience does not either.  Your free-wheeling crudeness born of your fondness for rude radio personalities whose rhetorical tactics work well when they control the mute button, does not translate well to an open forum against an obsessively thorough intellect such as mine.  I'm not the smartest guy, if intellect is a wild animal, I'm not a tiger, I'm a badger and you are foolish to enter my den, I'm pretty sure that is what Murray would say and part of me wishes you guys would learn that, because I'd rather be doing other things, things you might even approve of.

 

And in one small way, I'll soon show you how honest I am, I'm going to give your post a premier position on a fast track (and this remark sure sounds like implied approval to me, not that I need it) right near the top.  After I post our conversation prominently, you can check it for accuracy.  Honestly, to me you seem like the type that is going to demand that I not publish your words.  One guy did that so far, and I honored his request.  Please let me publish this exchange, I will not include your email address or name.  Your silence is approval.

 

I'm thinking of giving our dialog the title "Shepherd's Chapel Student Threatens My Family."  I bet that would turn some heads, maybe even some heads in law enforcement, eh?

 

Actually, that will not be the title, that would not be fair, but do you see how that threat feels?  Ooogy! Boogy! I'm going to set the law on you! I'm not kidding, merely illustrating.

 

How about this one? "17 year Chapel Student Warns of Threats against My family."  I like that one, but I don't really want to over-sensationalize, I'll think of a good one.

 

I'm way behind on posting emails (if you look at the dates of the most recent ones you will see they are quite old)  But I will put you at the front of the line, as soon as we are done, or maybe sooner so I can enjoy your reaction.

 

In your present position, I'd be more concerned with "a little bird telling the matter", and finding my "stuff" broadcast as a teaching tool sometime.....  

 

Another threat, but not very intimidating, though it seems you meant it to be. 

 

And I took you for a clever man...  Why would the Shepherd's Chapel acknowledge me?  I'm just some internet nut, if they broadcasted my stuff on their network, it would be like giving me a free commercial.  I would see a major increase in traffic.  Arnold knows better than to do something stupid like that.  But then again, I would love it. If they honestly looked at my arguments against something like the serpent seed, that would be great, but if they stacked the deck, or did something intellectually dishonest, that would be even better.  I would be able to use that broadcast to create the framework for a conversation in which I reply to their points, oh, and that leads me to your next point...

 

let alone the arguable copyright infringement.  

 

Oh!  Are you saying now that I can't post our conversation?  Or is this about my use of Chapel clips or something?  No matter, I'll talk about both.  As a musician with several works protected under copyright, I am very familiar with copyright law.   You are obviously not. 

 

This conversation would not be considered protected under copyright.  For one, you'd have to sue me, you will not find a lawyer willing to take the case, I would find one willing to take mine...count on it!  This would be a pro bono case for some Jewish lawyer!  We would suggest to the court that you knew that emails sent to me were to part of a public debate on a private website and that I was moderator.  We would suggest that your sending the message was itself approval for publishment since you had read my invitation and had arguably seen the other published letters (over which no one has complained, most people like seeing their messages printed)  We would further argue that since your anonymity was protected you have no standing for claiming damages. I presume you will not perjure yourself by claiming ignorance of what my site was all about, but then again, you are a long-term Chapel student and you folks despise righteousness.   Under the circumstances, the law would rule in favor of me, they call it 'fair use' for criticism, commentary and reporting. It is arguably in the public interest.  You can't threaten me privately and then hide behind copyright law. 

But, if you ask me, I will respect your wishes, even though you will seriously break my heart.  But I would rather have you live in shame knowing you put your tail between your legs and ran,  than shame you publicly against your will, even though I promise I will keep it anonymous.  You have nothing to lose, people won't even believe you are serious.  When you read half the chapel messages you probably think they are fake.  God and I know the truth.

 

That's right slick, The Chapel had need to protect themselves legally after 1996.

 

And I would love for them to come after me, but they never will.  Everything of theirs which I have used falls under a clear "fair use"  interpretation of the law.  For one, the few audio clips I use are very short, copyright law protects them from having their works stolen, such as by someone who would publish whole messages or parts of messages without permission.  I am clearly using very short clips, and my intent is clearly to CRITICIZE.  I'm sure you can see that.  Well, copyright law does NOT protect you against critics and commentators.  That's right. Maybe you need to spend even more time on Wikipedia because you are clearly under a few misapprehensions about the law. 

 

Other extenuating factors in my favor:  All the cassettes I obtained and still possess were obtained under Murray's former "no copyright" pledge.  I would argue that they cannot withdraw that pledge from materials sold to persons who bought the cassettes under the old "no copyright" pledge.  Also, I would never just rip his cassettes and give them away, violating their copyright (if it can be said to exist for the cassettes I bought)  I would use his teachings only to criticize.  Isn't that what I do?

 

"Arnold Murray to the stand!"  Do you think he would subject himself to that? 

 

Did you ever finish the lecture where a particular "pastor" gave an interview for a newspaper on HOW to PURPOSELY obfuscate the 2nd coming to his own congregation rather than teach it ?  Even funnier than your particular syndrome.  Of course, Pastor Murray wasn't exactly gentle with the rebuke.  But one fella in the studio couldn't contain his laughter.

 

I'm glad you remember that, I just don't feel motivated to dig through all the old video cassettes to find that one video.  But I don't need that video to demonstrate Murray's hypocrisy when it comes to his one-way street view of criticism.

 

 It's all about the Word, Paul, not Pastor Murray or the church so you're probably pretty safe.  

 

Am I safe?  It is good of you to say so, because you seem to take sadistic delight in suggesting I'm not in order to silence me.

 

I have come to see Dr. Murray (old habit) as someone with a profound disrespect for the scriptures.  He is always having to change the meaning of the words to make it conform to his view of reality. He leavens the word with his views and wisdom and I find that repulsive.

 

He doesen't single out individuals or churches by name, right?  

 

Bring it on Shepherd's Chapel, single me out.  Its one thing to single out some guy in a newspaper to criticize.  It is another thing to criticize a critic.  Dr. Murray is shrewd.  But Maybe I have misjudged him.

 

Should I start counting your threats?  I know you have no power to carry this out, but it is clear you want me to feel threatened.

 

But I believe for the sake of the unsuspecting he could possibly be moved by The Spirit to give warning with a clown's" initials".  I sure wouldn't risk that kind of exposure.

 

Risk it?  Why?  Will a squad of Shepherd's Chapel assassin's show up at my door?  I would gladly die for that.  I only fear an ungodly death.  Can you imagine?  I don't think it would be good for Murray's business.  He names me, and I am assassinated.  Don Murray. Wow.

 

 You got it so that when I plant seeds ACCORDING TO THE WORD, the folks who take their 1st step can find your stuff 6 links down the list.....

 

I bet that makes you mad. I've been around a long time, and my website has a lot of content on Murray.

 

Why do you all seem to think you are entitled to an unencumbered field?  This is not Murray's millennial fantasy scenario.

 

with all due respect you're a babbler nesting in the branches, picking off those good seeds before they sprout as they were intending.  

 

Why should I be due any respect? I have no respect for you, you have already exhausted the respect I extend to strangers.  I respect your intellect but not the crude way you have used it to intimidate and cow me.

 

You have no good seed, only corrupt seed.  Murray's teachings are corruptions and they corrupt people.  I'm not picking seeds, I'm purging LEAVEN. 

 

Deveope your own church on the merit of your own ability, Paul, not on the coat-tails of the successful ones,

 

I am of the church already, so I don't need another.  Part of my merit is my ability to take on a false teacher like Murray.  I'm not riding on his coat tail (but I have seen a few groups who truly do that)

67.) "My Pastor/Teacher goes thru Fathers Word as Pastor Murray and broadcasts worldwide. We are the generation full of zeal for Father's Word.  We are not as reserved as Dr Murray." A Shepherd's Chapel Knock-off Group Speaks Up.

 

using a twisted logic of saving folks from the same mistake you claim to have made.

 

What is twisted about it?  If you step in a hole and twist your ankle, do you fill it in, or leave it for others to stumble over?  God sent me to Murray for a purpose.  And I will oppose him.

 

Seriously!  WHAT IS TWISTED ABOUT IT?????  You say it  is twisted, but give no explanation. It is the same logic Murray uses when he teaches against the rapture (and when he read that newspaper article) and the same logic Paul Used.

2 Timothy 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; (and Dr. Arnold Murray)
2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Funny that Murray (and so many others) would commit a LISTED heresy.

 

That's a punk that does that.  

 

Do you ever get tired of name-calling?  I know you are good at it but have you ever considered bridling your tongue?  I bet you can't bridle the rest of your body either, can you? 

 

On what scriptural basis do you make that argument?  None.  It is your own "common sense"  wisdom,  which is opposed to the wisdom of God which directs us to MARK men like Murray.  And that is what I do.

 

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

You have no comparable scriptures, just your own self-assured, "I know better" view of the bible.

 

I'd be wise enough to yank that whole section of my website, with a HUMBLE explanation to my followers, before the worry of getting served gave me an ulcer.  

 

Who is going to serve me?  The chapel?  You? They wouldn't dare, and if they did, I'd be pleased.  You? Well, you know better speaking for yourself, than I could say.

 

You use the Shepherds Chapel domain name,

 

Not true. I certainly do not.  Domain name????  I do not believe that the term "shepherds chapel dot com" occurs anywhere on my website (or any of the .org. net terms they may possess, notice I left out the "dot" even here)  Not that it would be illegal to have a link to their website on my pages or anything. My opinion of your intellect is waning.

 

I can make reference to The Shepherd's Chapel as much as I please, I'm criticizing, commenting and reporting, that is precisely the kind of speech that is protected under "fair use"  If you look at the rest of my website and check the html source code, you will find that not one page that is unrelated to the Chapel has any tags or other false descriptions meant to deceive people about the nature of those pages.  It would be wrong of me, for instance to put all kinds of Shepherd's Chapel, and Arnold Murray tags on my music page or on my bible study page, but I don't do that.  It would not be illegal, but it would be highly unethical.

 

pictures,

 

Are you kidding?  My private wedding photos are the only chapel pictures on my website.  Arnold Murray is a public figure, they have no claim.

 

and qualify yourself as possesing virtually all their teaching tools,

 

Well, I don't really mean to "qualify" myself because of that, (though I guess that is the effect, I don't really see the point)  I really think what qualifies me is the knowledge I posses. The fact that If you dared tangle with me over the scriptures, I would have you for lunch, because your beliefs are based on innuendo and "reading between the lines," not on sound doctrine.  I have what the words say on my side, you have convince people that what they read is not what it seems to be.  The bible teaches me, whereas you and your Pastor dictate to the bible what it shall mean.

 

with the apparatus in place to take donations!!!  

 

Is there something sinister about taking donations?  Arnold Murray begs for donations on a daily basis.

 

Scary!!!!   But what do I know, RIGHT?         

 

Right.

 

  1)  Do you not understand the phrase "sour grapes"?.... wikipedia doggone it !!!; time facts have no relevance to the phrase here.  You should be able to find some wonderful remedial reading products online along with similar mathematics products because,..... 

  

No I understand. You have not lived my life so you don't know how I fell about it.  The long time period between my losing interest in the chapel and my decision to speak up is, in my opinion, suggestive of a considered response that came with maturity.  Not out of a petulant desire to spit on the man whose approval you think I desired.  It seemed to me that if that was my motivation it would have been more immediate.  But I can see why from your skeptical perspective this would be irrelevant.  To me it is relevant, because I am the one who has lived my life, and I oppose Murray, not because of some juvenile impulse (sour grapes), but because he is an enemy of the gospel that I must oppose.  he was my teacher, so I feel responsible for him. 

 

You can read whatever you like into my motivations.  The fact that you have to rely on attacking me personally and speculate about my motivations betrays the inherent weakness of your position. You and your kind can't fight me in the scriptures, so you desire to change the venue. You build straw-man versions of me, tell lies about me and justify yourself because you feel the ends justify the means.

 

   2)  I typed "SOME" 3 years, allowing that you may not have started your association with the church on 1/1/93, and ended it on 12/31/96; 4 actual years.  3 years fits handily within 4, so I was being expedient in the midst of an hysteria induced hernia  Going by your response, you did EXACTLY that, or else you're rounding up by as much as 364 days.  I might actually BE a genius now that I see how eloquently I dealt with that.  I I I, me me me.  Now re-read your stuff!!!!!  Laughing again.  Thanks again.

  

Your welcome, I almost deleted that paragraph but I thought you would bite and you did.  I was just curious to see you do it.  It really is fascinating to watch you strut and crow over your little egg.  But my approximation of 93-96 is an approximation intended to mean "four years", which I believe is an accurate estimate of the time of my intense study with him, after which it slowly tapered off, because I do not remember precisely when I stopped studying with him. When my 1998 album the fear of Yahveh came out I sent the Chapel a free box to hand out to people and I was still active in bible studies with other student of the chapel.   It was not until 2005 when I received power from God that my mind was turned against the doctrines I still believed in, up till then I still had respect for Murray even though I had been slowly feeling less and less like my chapel-based beliefs were really very biblical.

 

  3 )  I'm so unimpressed by your little episodes of infiltration and close contact with the church.  

 

Make a decision, please, infiltration, or sour grapes.  It can't be both.  Infiltration requires some sort of premeditated intent.  Sour grapes implies that I am a more sincere yet deluded punk.

 

You are not supposed to be impressed.  These are just the facts.  My credentials are my ability to make you level false accusations against me. 

 

I'd hardly call it close contact. For goodness sake, I just got married there, and got baptized, he baptized hundreds of people at the Passover meeting, anointed many. I am truly closer to him through the TV because that is where I came to know the man's ministry.  He injected himself into my home via the airwaves and told me we were part of a church together.  I'm part of that church and you can't disown me with your wishful and ignorant lies, I don't need anyone there to testify of me.

 

It's in character with folks who would spend thousands of dollars on almost everything in the house, and then learn just enough to start stealing sheep.  

 

Well again, think what you want, but the time factor, in my book, says otherwise.  Again, this is all fine for you, but I want to remind people that you choose to talk about this because your doctrine is bankrupt. 

 

I don't really need to p[rove my motives, my motives are not really what is on trial here, it is Murray's doctrine, I don't mind taking a little time to defend my motives, but you can't defend his doctrine.

 

But, you do even more with the interNET, the  world wide WEB; you use the afforementioned tools of micro-clips and adroit pretext to accomplish the theft, and claim to be sparing the unsuspecting. 

 

It's called "fair use" get used to it.  Micro-clips and criticism/reporting are protected free speech, copyright cannot muzzle me.

 

I on the other hand, have bloomed where I was planted 17 years ago, and am well known and aquainted with the family and long term employees..... every bit as welcome now, as then.  They are in my heart as family.  

 

Obviously, not so with me. I think you have read too much into my writings.

 

You must've been one of those clingy, hero worshipping sycophants that ulitimately went off on a "TARE" when you're fruit was recognized. Typical.  Sour grapes/bitter wheat.     

 

No, you have the wrong man.

 

I'd be surprised if they remembered me, we were there for a week, but we didn't act like groupies in the least. When we saw the way people lined up to shake his hand we just walked out the door, we find that kind of behavior distasteful.  I was not raised that way.  I don't have heroes, never have, my father was very much against hero worship and I am very much my father's son.  I had one conversation with Pastor Murray other than our vows, it was when he was signing my marriage license,  I commented to him how I did not know how he dealt with all the people who were always trying to take up his time and attention, he said he prayed and that the Lord always helped him manage or gave him the ability to do what was needed, or something like that.  That was it. We waited till Wednesday to get married and we were quiet and did not bother anybody.  I had a flat tire, Dennis or David, I forget which asked if I needed help but I said, "no thanks, just a flat."  We spent most of our time out at Beaver Lake.

 

Aside from my misgivings about some things he said at the Passover, I was still only 21 and trying to learn.  I still had a lot of respect for the man, but the Passover was a turning point I won't deny.  But it was just one visit, I never desired to return.

 

 4)  I'm too busy these days to keep enertaining myself with your ranting demagoguery.  I'll be sure to tip my waiter. 

 

Hmmm, I don't rant, or demagogue, I appeal to people's intelligence with reason and reasoned arguments from scripture.

 

5th smooth stone)  Book of Jude if you've gotten there yet.....' the Lord rebuke thee'

 

What hypocrisy, after bringing all sorts of "railing accusations" against me, (and they can be considered nothing less), you throw in "the lord rebuke thee,"  That reveals such stunning lack of self awareness.  Amazing.

 

STOP IT BRO.....YOU'RE KILLING ME!!!!   He's secretive on T.V.????  What color is the sky in the world you live in, really.  

 

Come on, he never, ever will come out and say something like this, "Ok, ok, I get a lot of questions about the Kenites so let me be clear, all those folks whom the world calls "Jews"  are the Kenites, they are the literal flesh and blood offspring of Satan, and Satan had sex with eve in the garden, and Adam?  well... a word to the wise is sufficient" 

 

The guy teaches that eating fruit is a euphemism for having sex, simply because "touch" can have multiple meanings the way cock, prick, and screw can have other meanings, but never mind that there is no contextual justification for taking such a view of things, never mind that exapatao, does not indicate "sexual seduction"  but merely wholesale deception.  Did you know that the angel that wrestled with Jacob "touched" him on the THIGH, on the THIGH! Get out your Strong's an see what that word is, yep,  naga "yada yada yada,"  by euphemism to lie with a woman." Never mind the first half of the definition and never mind the context.  That is why you need to do more than follow Murray's breadcrumb trails, he employs a selective use of the evidence.  Naga, does not mean sex, exapatao does not mean sexual seduction, and I would love to go into detail and have, many times, to the overthrow of many a chapel valiant.

 

The idea that Murray is secretive is a weak point, obviously, and it is not one of my primary complaints, is it? But people write me saying, "Arnold Does not teach that filth about the garden! I've been listening for months.  How dare you say such things!"  So you can't honestly call the guy straightforward.  You see him as such because you understand the code.  Many don't get it, but they support him,  and that is why he is evasive about certain things. 

 

I would rather argue about the things he is not secretive about.

 

I think I'll stop here because you might in truth be limited by a debilitating  chemical imbalance as a result of the drugs you confess to.  

 

You really love taking that rhetorical victory over all other considerations, you don't seem at all interested in taking the higher ground.  I thought you would do this.  I confessed my past openly to you so people could see you do this and see what a mean spirited person you are. 

 

This man is the elect of Arnold Murray.  This is he whom they welcome with open arms.  This is he whom they love. 

 

And I'm sure the Lord would frown on me for that.  

 

Really.  So you have willfully and publicly done that which you are sure God would not approve of.  Amazing. I was in bondage to drugs, and either God delivered me, or by whatever means you like, I was delivered.  And you mock, openly confessing you know you do wrong.  You could have deleted your remark.  But it is not fun to do good, is it?

 

You are no brother, so I feel no fear in calling you an utter fool.   Murray would agree, despite your brotherhood with him.  

 

You are unbridled.  And I'm sure much of your life reflects your lack of self-control.  Call me a liar.

 

But

 

What I do justifies what you do?  What a fascinating unbiblical philosophy you follow.

 

in as much as you've seen fit to set up a website  with Shepherd's Chapel domain name,

 

This is a false claim.

 

complete with pictures,

 

My pictures.

 

expressing ties inimate enough for him to perform your wedding,

 

I expressed no intimate ties.  I made it clear that I got married by him because I loved the guy.  At the time I could not imagine getting married by anyone else.

 

qualifying yourself with almost all the available study tools,

 

I qualify myself the same way Murray does, by may abilities.  Abilities which you have not denied.

 

and then set up the 501(c)( 3) tax exemption for religious non-profit organizations complete with the apperatus to collect donations

 

I'll make a deal with you, you get the chapel to open up their books to public scrutiny and I will open my books to you.

 

under the auspices of schismatic incongruancies but with the more provable burden of appearing to have infiltrated and infringed (long inhale), 

 

Infringed?  Fair use. 

 

 I figured I'd have a little fun with ya. 

 

You know God is frowning but you would rather have fun.  After all, you are one of the elect, and you earned your salvation by battling against satan in the world that was. At least that is what Murray told you in the land of make-believe.

 

here come more threats... you intend for me to feel threatened.  I do not feel the threat, but I do feel your ill-will.

 

 You did legally incorporate yourself under the tax exemption in Illinois. didnt you?  

 

You get the chapel to open their books an I'll open my books to you.  I make no pretences about being a charity.  Anything I take in would be personal income and taxed as such, not that I take in much.  My chief  rewards are the "thank you's" I get from people I have helped avoid Arnold Murray.  The donations have barely and rarely ever even covered the cost of hosting the website.  This is done mostly at my expense.  Certainly I have never gotten paid for all my time.

 

Well any way, you made me laugh probably as hard as the drugs used to do for you

 

Laugh now. For you shall weep later.

 

I was concerned only with your use of the church's name at first, and for the 1st time was moved to contact one of the sites that do what you do.  

 

What is wrong with my use of their name? You can't immunize yourself from critics by abuse of copyright law.  Can't do it.  Some have tried. Even if they registered "Shepherd's Chapel" as some sort of trademark, they could not stop me from referring to them by name, only from using their icon (which I don't use anyway)  It is no different than  Consumer reports.  I have the right to speak against the Shepherd's Chapel, and Dr Arnold Murray, by name, he is a public figue on the public airwaves and this is AMERICA.  And not only that, my faith also directs me to speak.

 

I did also go look at a couple areas of your site and shook my head at the fact that you invite challenges on the internet , with no long steps between your family and the television audience; particularly on the subject of religion, and don't have the wherewithal to protect your family by maintaining some discretion.  I was raised in a law enforcement family..... public figures without some security in place have always kept there head down as much as is necessary to protect their loved ones while administering their office or whatever.  Get your head straight in that department alone, please.  

 

If you think I would discuss my personal security measures, for my family and property, with a known enemy, then you have the wrong man again. 

 

The Chapel has HUGE exposure to all kooks in the world, but does so with a certain level of vigilance towards security.

 

Arnold Murray has terrible security.  I know for a fact that a mentally disturbed man easily found him at his home, (he did not answer the door with a weapon other than his rude mouth) and had access to all sorts of people at the chapel including David's daughter.   They had this guy jailed for criminal trespass, but if he had wanted do Murray harm, it would not have been hard at all, he wound up in jail for wanting to talk do dennis after he had been told to leave.   They are defenseless against murderous crazies, don't kid yourself.  I think you are naive. You should be lecturing the folks down at the chapel.  Murray is basically a sitting duck, he has a routine that is so predictable that a dedicated nut would have no problem getting to him. 

 

But despite all the people he has mistreated, I don't think anyone has it in for him, he is just deals with small problems in a paramoid fashion and people walk away. (but I swear, he never mistreated me! I never saw that side of Murray, you know him better than I. I have only heard second hand tales of the way he deals with hero worshippers, as you seem to be familiar with his peculiar affliction with such, I was never among them, do I really seem like the type to you?  You ought to see that it is just wishful thinking on your part)

 

But that is not the kind of secrecy I was talking about, they keep all their finances secret because they don't want people to see that Murray is falsely representing himself as not taking a dime...for teaching, I have no doubt he does not get paid as a teacher, but I'm guessing more than a few dime of ministry money have been spent for his personal benefit.  Let's see the books.

 

Then there you go calling it secretive, and plaster all the info a kook would need to do you hurt as close to that exposure as you can get.  Not wise my friend.  

 

I'm not going to live in fear.

 

And if you think,... 'The Lord will protect me cause I answer his call'.... is the answer, then you may be the worst kind of fool.  Being wiser than the serpent is the order of the day.  

 

I'm not going to enter this discussion with a known enemy.  I trust the Lord, no doubt about that.  But he has put many things in my heart to do that I also follow.  I'm not into the "sit on your hands" kind of faith, as you might have perceived. I do not fear the terror that walks by night, I am to be feared, because God has taught me to be fierce.

 

 Having also a "psych major" in the immediate family, I learned years ago that not many things pull the bent mind out into the world like religion.  An inordinate percentage of psychotics fixate on religion.  

 

If God decides to kill me and my family by sending a psycho after me, ultimately, there is nothing I can do to stop it, but if he sends a psycho to me, for me to kill, nothing can save the man, he shall surely die.  Safety is an illusion. Locks can be broken.  The best laid defenses breached.  When the Lord speaks doom it is accomplished.  I can accept that or delude myself.

 

No, I'm not pointing the statement at you.

 

Understood.

 

  I'm admonishing you to at least put a better wall between that beautiful family, and the kooks you seem set on "inviting."  

 

 I'm not going to live in fear and secrecy any more than Murray does.

 

And NO, that's not meant for Shepherds Chapel students.  

 

Who else would have a grudge against me?  If I die for the word, then I will die without regret.

 

John 16:2 ...yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Should I expect less?

 

I absolutely deliver this final e-mail in brotherly love as with the former ones, honestly.  

 

I believe you believe that, but you are not convincing me, you have insinuated violence against my family, threatened legal action on false grounds, made all kinds of slanderous remarks and called me many colorful names.

 

I'm astonished that you can be so lacking in self-awareness. Actually, though, this third letter does betray your guilty conscience,  you know you've been a bad boy, so after  your several threatening letters you have attempted to give them context.  Now you want to start playing nice after attempting to incite me to fear with threats.  Not that you were directly threatening to do anything.  You sought to inspire fear in me, that I have done things contrary to the law and have endangered my family.   It is nothing otherwise.

 

You have not done anything illegal, but what you have not done is anything to defend the doctrine of Arnold Murray, your message will be an example of the kind of mean spirited fruit that falls from that tree. And also an example of what Murray's followers are reduced to when they are confronted with someone who has thoroughly "checked out" the doctrine.  You have to attack me, because, unlike the bible, I can't document the thoughts of my heart, so you get to make things up and it is just my word against yours really.

 

But if we talk about the bible, the bible is printed in black and white.  And then I can expose the way you manipulate the truth.

 

But you are free to smirk if I tell you I don't wish you Godspeed at this time.  

 

What I find interesting is your need to tell me this.  "I do not wish you Godspeed." Interesting.  Would not silence serve just as well? Apparently not.

 

Let's both let each other go in peace.....

 

After all you said, you just wanted to walk away without my response, not a chance.  You want to walk away?  Then walk.  Don't reply.  I really don't have any desire for further communication with you.  I have enough material from you.  You will only make your error worse by continuing the conversation. 

 

I'm posting this early, like I said, you go to the front of the line.  "

 

I'm swamped, and don't need another avenue to pursue.  

 

Me too. I wish you had not inconvenienced me, but I consider it my duty, so here I am replying.

 

Peace.  And peace doesn't mean 5 more paragraphs......agreed?...good!

 

2 Cor 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?

 

Keep your peace, I want none of it.  You are not repenting are you?  Thought not.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Fourth Reply:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 10:35 PM

Subject: Re: Open wide...

I'm not Shepherds Chapel, nor have I claimed to speak on behalf of, or for them.  The common element in everything you've pointed at me has been your complete inability to assimilate whats been said.  With regards to the infringement "rhetorical question" , and "hypothetical scenario"  i offered, I speek only from my own knowledge to what your story looks like; no accusations; no judgementalism; but sorry I struck that nerve.  "You're probably pretty safe"...... was in the context of a hypothetical scenario, not to be taken as a threat.  But, like as I've seen you do, I will concede a lack of clarity in maintaining the hypothetical context...sorry for that one.  And the legal theory that I offered went to infiltration for the purpose of infringement, or piracy of copyright protected information.... I saw your link as part of the revenue generating apperatus with c.c donation options.  If the same wording was presented by a friend or family member, you're saying you wouldn't you consider it even a little deeper?  Not my fight anyway...I thought you'd think on it yourself, and make your mind up about that page, and it seems you have.  I don't care anymore... SERIOUSLY.  

     The 30's gangsta line was well received....it seems it was meant to be funny so I took it that way.  Again, you're discernment was off, but youre right....no context and so forth...that's why I don't do this garbage to begin with.  I'm sorry I felt like it would be different this time.  About the family points I made....it was an object lesson/admonishment to keep them out of the cyber-media if youre gonna invite antagonism, because I've had experience  and first hand knowledge of KOOKS drawing near by way of this media....your site IS media.  Have you not heard of the bad stuff going on out there??     

  Did you actually read  the 3 or 4 smaller replies I sent?  Apparently not; because you replied with a book (not much BIBLE in it, but lotsa links to YOUR SITE), threatening me with assault.  "Fistacuffs" ?....I saw another reply where you suggest if the guy "wants a part of you he should come closer".  You are of a spirit I can't hang out with, so do as you see fit.  If you have a group of folks supporting you that interpret printed words the same way you do, then I will apologize because you could be the kind of cult that goes about chopping off heads (humor).  And I've got zero concern for what those 23 people would think or say anyway(humor).  But I'm about my Father's business, and should have treated your site like the others.... just shake my head, and go on to my own study.  Lesson learned, sorry I troubled ya.  I know now to LIGHTEN up on the coffee(humor)!!!  And YES I have repented, but you didn't hear it because I didn't do it in your name (humor).  Can we both go about our lives now Paul?  Or is the fact that I'm the 1st sleep deprived, over caffeinated sucker to interrupt your peace in 2 years beyond you getting over(humor, kinda)?    

Emailer's Subsequent Message:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:03 PM

Subject: Re: Thank You for the uplift! !!

Just read all your reply and you DID read all mine.  I see you referred to the latter messages I sent as the coffee wore off, and discrened some acceptance in you.  Yeah, I owe an apology.... I'm sorry.  I started with Dear Monkey, proving no intillectual credibility, and that begs a problem, don't it?  Goddspeed Paul.

Emailer's Additional Subsequent Message: 

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

From: xxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:21 PM

Subject: Re: Thank You for the uplift! !!

James 5:16 in progress.  Now you know I'm real.

 

Comment: James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

My Third Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:55 PM

Subject: Re: Open wide...

Hi again XXXXXXXXXXXX, I'm ready to be finished, and I would not trouble you, but I have to finish these conversations.

 

I'm not Shepherds Chapel, nor have I claimed to speak on behalf of, or for them.  

 

I have been aware of that from the beginning and acknowledge that fact now as well.

 

The common element in everything you've pointed at me has been your complete inability to assimilate whats been said.  

 

Nothing has been said. Things have been written.  I've said this many times, to many people.  The written word does not always communicate our intent.  That is a fact we must take into account when writing. 

 

I will readily admit that I  could not comprehend the exact nature and intent of all your comments.  But due to the obviously hostile nature of your correspondence, why should I be blamed for interpreting your remarks in the darkest possible terms?

 

After all, you had been reading all kinds of secret motives and intent into my words and actions on my website.   It is not even a question of misunderstanding.  You approached me to accuse me of deceit.  And I, knowing the honesty of my story,  saw you as an highly imaginative vandal come to paint me in the gaudy colors of your imagination.

 

What interest should I have had in assimilating anything you had to say?  From my perspective, all that you said was false accusation.

 

You have done me a favor though, I see how people might misread my photo and story.  I never intended people to think I was "close" to the people down in Gravette.  I was a TV student.  But as I indicated, Arnold Murray taught me that our connection through the TV was significant, all I ever meant to say was that I had studied with the Chapel,  I didn't even need to buy all the tapes I bought, they were free on TV, I was just young and hungry.

 

With regards to the infringement "rhetorical question" , and "hypothetical scenario"  i offered,

 

I recognized both as such, but as I indicated, in the context of all your other remarks, until some of your later emails, I did not know what to make of your warnings, hypothetical or otherwise.

 

I speek only from my own knowledge to what your story looks like; no accusations; no judgementalism; but sorry I struck that nerve. 

 

Accepted.

 

 "You're probably pretty safe"...... was in the context of a hypothetical scenario, not to be taken as a threat.  

 

I know that, and I already had read your later emails, so I also knew when I wrote you.  My purpose in taking the "threats" seriously, was to demonstrate to you how such words affect one so subjected to those sorts of remarks. The later contrary evidence of the third email, which I assumed was your true feeling, was a bit of a relief, but I was still making assumptions, I really have no way of determining your sincerity other than your word, and you have shown yourself willing to write things that would be best left unwritten..

 

But, like as I've seen you do, I will concede a lack of clarity in maintaining the hypothetical context...sorry for that one.  

 

The context of our whole encounter was very hostile.  It is not just maintaining a hypothetical context around that scenario (which I knew was hypothetical, I have had to deal with individuals who have taken action against me so I know the difference). 

 

"Lissin... speakin' hype-a-tet-ick-lee, if yas don'ts lays off..."

 

If the spirit of the encounter is hostile, it is very easy to regard all "threats" as borne of ill-will and tending towards a desire to destroy an enemy. That is why I used the "gangster motif" because no matter what I say in that motif it comes off as threatening. 

 

"Dat's a nice car!  It would be a shame if sumthing happen'd ta it...."

 

And the legal theory that I offered went to infiltration for the purpose of infringement, or piracy of copyright protected information....

 

Ok.  But like I said, if it was a legal question, I could call many witnesses, who would testify of what an enthusiastic and pain in the neck Chapel student I was.  But I need no witnesses to convince myself.  I think I just need to clarify a few things on my website.

 

I saw your link as part of the revenue generating apperatus with c.c donation options.  

 

There was no money link there for several years, I go back and forward on that. I don't get many donations, I've considered removing it again. When I had it on other pages but not on the Chapel page I still got accused of "begging" and "getting rich" off the chapel.   I put it out there boldly because there is nothing wrong with it and I know it will lead to interesting conversations.  Still there are reasons to consider for removing it (at least from that page).  But I will never do it from fear or from the thought that it is wrong.  It would be a choice based on what I thought was most persuasive for the ministry, like I said, I don't get many donations.  Mostly from people more interested in my bible studies than in my work against Murray.

 

If the same wording was presented by a friend or family member, you're saying you wouldn't you consider it even a little deeper?  

Not my fight anyway...I thought you'd think on it yourself, and make your mind up about that page, and it seems you have.  

 

It has been brought up by family members, and I have considered it. Yes, more deeply, because it came from people who love me. The donate button may yet come down on the chapel page.  But for other reasons than fear of legal action from any quarter.

 

I don't care anymore... SERIOUSLY.  

 

If you say so.  I like to be taken at my word when it comes to my inner workings and motivations.  So I will take you at your word.  I believe you don't care.  What would you call me if I said "I don't believe you, you totally care!"  Well, I do not want to be that.

 

I oppose Dr Murray because I think his doctrine is wrong.  That is primarily what I write about.  I don't say he is a bad man, or a jerk, I say his doctrine is wrong.  Those are the grounds on which I oppose him.  That may lead to some very unpleasant discussions with his students, but as much as I want to avoid making negative remarks, it makes them hit harder when we finally relent a little.

 

I'm going to take a look at my "Is Paul Stringini a fraud" page and make sure I make it clear that I was never close to Arnold Murray except through the TV.  The point was just to show that I was motivated enough as a student to go down to Arkansas to get married.   At the time it seemed like the most natural thing to do.

 

I never sought a place in Gravette.  Katie and I wanted to meet people of like minds from Illinois.  We did meet them and I led bible studies for nearly ten years with people from Illinois who were also Shepherd's Chapel viewers (I don't think I really cover that anywhere)  I taught the same doctrines as Arnold Murray.  But eventually I came to believe that I was teaching the wrong things.

 

There are people around on the internet who may still remember me (such as from the Fig Tree Cafe, I was there for a very short period before I got turned off by some of the in-fighting).  I was always very reluctant to speak against the Pastor, certainly never on the internet (until 2007). I used to say, "He may not be right about everything, but he is the best teacher out there."  And I believed it.

 

Seriously.  So give me the same credence you would like to enjoy.

 

The 30's gangsta line was well received....it seems it was meant to be funny so I took it that way.  Again, you're discernment was off, but youre right....no context and so forth...that's why I don't do this garbage to begin with.  

 

Good, I did not intend to mock you in any way with that line, I'm glad you saw it merely as a mildly humorous demonstration of how we perceive things based on context.

 

I'm sorry I felt like it would be different this time.  

 

It could be still.  Wanna talk Kenites? :)  Serpent seed maybe?  But I have covered all that ground many times.  I think it would be a bit much for me to ask you to read the stuff I wrote on that.  On the other hand, I firmly believe that we should challenge ourselves.  That is why I take time to write everyone who writes me.  Its a sacrifice I make for love of truth and because I try to give at least this much respect to every man, to take his words seriously when he writes me.  You will never challenge your beliefs so much as if you test them against the things I have written about them, (and I mean the detailed writings in the emails, not my initial document which was just a beginning).

 

About the family points I made....it was an object lesson/admonishment to keep them out of the cyber-media if youre gonna invite antagonism,

 

I understand that, especially after that last message which definitely had a changed tone.  But I know how to handle kooks, we have extremely limited exposure. Nothing compared to the Murray's, who are exposed on a regular schedule and have laughable security for their degree of exposure.

 

because I've had experience  and first hand knowledge of KOOKS drawing near by way of this media....your site IS media.  Have you not heard of the bad stuff going on out there??     

 

No, I do not listen to the media, I don't really know what is going on in the world, I don't have time for it. I know what is going on around my house, I have a clear line of sight for about 5 miles in any direction. How can I earn money, raise my children, do this ministry, do my bible studies,  write music, record music, and also watch the world?  I used to listen to talk radio, but I stopped several years ago, it is all too much for me. I have my own works to accomplish.  And I grew weary of their rhetoric.  Would you like Sadam Hussein back in Power!? and when did you stop beating your wife!?!  I hate argument that relies on rhetoric instead of on facts.  I would rather talk about the bible.

 

 Did you actually read  the 3 or 4 smaller replies I sent?  Apparently not; because you replied with a book (not much BIBLE in it, but lotsa links to YOUR SITE),

 

Well, because I read all your reply before writing, I know that you did discover that I had read your replies.

 

How much bible have you quoted to me?  Zero. I have been attempting to drive this conversation into the bible.  But you have not bitten on the bait.

 

Follow the links, they are relevant.

 

threatening me with assault.  "Fistacuffs" ?....

 

I have been very generous in accepting you explanations for your admittedly bad behavior.   I thought you understood a hypothetical situation when you read one?

"and if you made such remarks to my face, we would have recourse to fisticuffs,"

 

The point is this.  People say things in email that they would never say to someone's face, because an intelligent person would know that it might incite violence.  I take you for an intelligent person.  Also I said "we" because maybe you would throw the first punch, I don't know you, but the situation would be volatile, that is all was saying.  I didn't say I would hit you,  I said if you made those remarks to my face we would likely end up fighting.

 

I saw another reply where you suggest if the guy "wants a part of you he should come closer".  You are of a spirit I can't hang out with, so do as you see fit.  

 

Is that so?  I believe that you are reading physical violence into the wrong end of that statement.  The point is that if you want to take me down you have to come close to me and do it.  Whether spiritually or physically. Like we are fighting right now.  From the beginning, I know this is a fight, you may not know it, but I do.  Come closer, let's talk.  And also, if someone wants to punch me in the face, he will not find me cowering.  It is not a threat at all.  Strike me, and I will grow more powerful.  I will protect my family, but if someone wants to hit me for anything I have said, I will offer both cheeks.

 

You are getting all "holier than thou" on me.  I can endure many personal insults, with much amiable good cheer, but if someone starts in on my wife and kids, I know that I am not much better than a beast.   You would see that in me and I presume you would back off.  Am I wrong? Therefore what is the problem here.  Have YOU attained perfection already? I'm just a man who recognizes his violent nature and seeks to suppress it.  If you and I were speaking face to face, unless you yourself suffer from the same lack of control over your tongue as you do over your fingers, you would keep your remarks civil and not attack my family. 

 

I can't hang out with people that would mention a man's family, verbally, hypothetically, or otherwise in the process of attempting to incite him on any other grounds.  What spirit is that?  Your whole (especially the first) message was designed to incite me, and to the tiny degree that it succeeded in what you had designed it to do, you say "foul."  You detected angst did you?  Well, pardon me.

 

If you have a group of folks supporting you that interpret printed words the same way you do, then I will apologize because you could be the kind of cult that goes about chopping off heads (humor).  

 

Well, you should apologize only  if you feel you did something wrong.  I know this is a joke, because if you believed it was true, you would not make such a weak apology to such people. 

 

The people who support me are very different than you might expect.  You only see my opposition to the Chapel, but they see the positive aspects of my ministry, specifically my emphasis on seeking godliness and obtaining holiness and righteousness in this present world.

 

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

And I've got zero concern for what those 23 people would think or say anyway(humor).  

 

You vastly overestimate the number of my supporters... (not kidding)

 

But I'm about my Father's business, and should have treated your site like the others.... just shake my head, and go on to my own study.  

 

I consider every person who writes me to be sent by God, for whatever reason.

 

Lesson learned, sorry I troubled ya.  I know now to LIGHTEN up on the coffee(humor)!!!  

 

No need to apologize on those grounds, because I realize that my website is an incitement.  Not to violence, on that, I do operate presuming  that Chapel students are peaceable folks and trust they will fight me with words only. (not that we are not well defended here on the hill)

 

And YES I have repented, but you didn't hear it because I didn't do it in your name (humor).  

 

That may be "funny" to you, but that sentence is still essentially character assassination. I do have a sense of humor, I just think this is probably the last place for it.

 

I oppose Arnold Murray's ministry, and, in all seriousness, you see a lot wrong with that.  And someone OUGHT to warn me.

 

Ezekiel 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

 

But I don't think you were obligated, unless you feel there was something lacking in the response from other students of the Chapel.

 

Can we both go about our lives now Paul? 

 

You may go if you do not reply, or if I have nothing more to say I will let you have the last word, I don't know.

 

 Or is the fact that I'm the 1st sleep deprived, over caffeinated sucker to interrupt your peace in 2 years beyond you getting over(humor, kinda)?    

 

Goodness no, do not get the wrong idea. I have dozens of email conversations to post (perhaps 6 dozen), you are not the first in two years, I am simultaneously having a conversation with another Chapel student. (They write me all the time) 

 

"What on earth do u think u are accomplishing by bad mouthing a preacher who says all the time... Read for yourself and don't trust any man, even this one.  If you are really led by God you would simply be learning and teaching the word, not bashing another preacher to get attention.  Do you think you are saving souls by trying to find fault in another preacher.  Exactly what is your purpose?  I mean you can find flaws in probably every preacher out there?  You have a big problem and you need to start over with God so you don't screw up those beautiful kids of yours with your arrogance. "

My conversation with that student is proceeding on much more pleasant lines even though it looks like we are going to be disagreeing to the end

 

"I have to say that it is obvious that you are gifted to debate in such a way that keeps a conversation or discussion ongoing.  During such discussions with my husband who shares your beliefs, this does not happen because once he reaches an impasse, he starts throwing darts.  You maintain your composure, even when you are under attack"

She might be a little too generous. Obviously, you might see me a little differently.  But, really, I do try to recognize and avoid "dart throwing."  Man to man, I would suggest that you examine the things you write and attempt to distill it down to a factual argument and avoid saying things that belittle people or cast them in exaggeratedly imbecilic light, Like all your references to my ability to read.  Those were clever only in a rhetorical sense, not everything we CAN think of saying to put people down is good to say.   I'm certainly not perfect at it, it is something I try to do, now you know one of my little secrets.  I use the delete key liberally on my second pass.

 

I just really have to catch up on posting theconversations, it is really a measure of how much more energy I put into other aspects of my ministry.. 

 

You are actually provoking me to catch up, and this month, I believe I have the time. 

 

The other two messages:

 

I will not add to those messages except to wonder why you would wish me Godspeed now.

 

Just wish me God's blessings, as I will wish you the same.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

 

PS  I'm going to try to catch up soon, and I will try to let you know that your message is up so that you can check the accuracy.

Emailer's Seventh Reply:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:55 AM

Subject: Re: Open wide...

Hey Paul,

 

   I'm bouncing between two cities with business, and can't take time to give your reply the time it deserves.  I LOVE the idea of peace making...we both are facing that direction, which is part of our duty.

    When I can I will sit down to it, and present myself to you in the "centered" mode, and not the "eccentric" mode, lol.

 

    Stay tuned.

My Fourth Response: I believe my next response sent the poor fellow off the deep end again into "eccentric mode" as he has called it, and as you will soon see... Apparently, I forgot that jokes made at my expense and at the expense of the safety and security of my family are harmless and hilarious, but there is nothing funny or humorous about someone from his side making a mistake such as this:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: XXXXXXXXXX

Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:51 PM

Subject: Re: Open wide...

XXXXX, I got this message this morning.  You have an active sense of humor, so you might enjoy it. This is a first...

 

I mean no malice, I really do see humor in this.  I'm going to try to patiently explain, but it might be pointless...

  

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

From: XXXXXA Different Chapel StudentXXXXX

To: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:34 PM

Subject: Arnold Murray and Clip C on your web site

I listened to "your" Clip C, on your website attempting to prove, what you call his perdictions.   THAT IS "NOT" ARNOLD MURRAY'S VOICE..........YOU DID A VERY POOR JOB ON THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!   SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The above message was in reference to this page:  Arnold Murray and the 1981 Prediction.  I have pitch-corrected the audio (leaving the original in place as well) to show this person that the voice is indeed that of Arnold Murray.

Emailer's Eighth Reply:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:10 PM

Subject: Re: Open wide...

I purposely in heart wished you Godspeed with a view towards repentance,  not for anything you're doing; because what you're doing has the earmark's of bipolar disorder.  The deluded grandiosity, fixation elements, instant and pronounced highs and lows that are discernable even in printed form.....  I'm not offering a diagnosis or trying to hurt your feelings Paul...but the obsession, and incoherency, and lack of ability to carry a thought from my posts to your reply without going into orbit is........ well, lets just say it makes me concerned that I might be dealing with a decent guy with an innocent weakness in his flesh.  I hadn't even come close to really absorbing your first reply to me back on the 8th, before my 1st "wait a minute" thought occurred.

 THAT's why I put the brakes on and got the caffeine and exhaustion out of the mix. THAT's why I agreed with you quickly; so I could look closer at what I was reading.

  You respond to individual clauses in my replies with PARAGRAPHS, that make non-sequitur assumptions from what is plainly stated.  That's not the mark of a healthy spirit..... it just ain't.  And then there's the paranoia...... 

  NOWHERE do I point to your doctrine, so no, I did not set out to "teach" you anything of God's word... I wouldn't present you the opportunity to blaspheme in response to me.  ALL of what my purpose in engaging you has been about starts with your duplicity in your search engine link; done in such a way that draws Shepherds Chapel seekers to your anti-type website.  I learn all I need to know about a person that claims to be an "information hub" and then lies about, or through chemical imbalace perceives erroneously, what is taught.  And then on the same page includes a link to recieve donations.

 

  THERE.... if you have folks that will yoke themselves to you after this observation, you can have'em.  Just don't be so deluded as to claim any converts of true Bible students !!

   I hold in reserve two replies to you that I sent to myself, dated the 8th or 9th, that prove my concern that you may not be well in the aforementioned way.

  Post away if you feel you should.... just withold the name and address as you have in every other case.  And I truly don't hold any animosity towards you.  You do you, and I'll do me.   Bye 

 

Emailer's Ninth Message:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:17 PM

Subject:   do not

 

forget to edit out the IP address from the place where you listed it in one of your replies before you post... if you post.

 

I hope only good for you. -XXXXXX

My Fifth Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46 PM

Subject: Re: Open wide...

Ultimately, It is not a question of the sincerity of your intentions towards me (which sincerity, upon receipt of this letter, I reject), but of the illogic of your methods, because all your comments are essentially ad hominem attacks against me personally, and have no bearing on any of the substance of my remarks against the Shepherd's Chapel. And then you have the gall to talk about non sequitur's in my remarks, which were based on your writings which have no substance or value in the first place, other than as examples of the excesses of those given to ad hominem speculations. 

 

All your writings have been ad hominem non sequitur's from the beginning, you imagine things about me personally which do not logically flow from what I have said, but are merely the baseless speculations of your highly prejudiced and presumptive perspective...so whatever I say in response to your writings is not likely to be very substantial, being built on such sand to begin with.  I have actually dared to answer attacks that most people would say I should ignore,  and you have devolved into questioning my mental health because I choose to answer you fully.  Perhaps I am insane, but only for giving one such as you any attention.

 

You've basically gone from calling me a monkey to questioning my mental health. Your reliance on attacking me personally is all the evidence people will need in order to understand your total frustration and the shocking poverty of scholarship among long-term Shepherd's Chapel students. 

 

My in-ability to understand and make sense of you in the midst of your slanderously false accusations and insult laden, threat filled, and carelessly written rhetoric may be poor.  But your ability and willingness to defend your teacher is still at 0%.  The bible is the object in question on my Shepherd's Chapel page, and you have done nothing to show me deficient in my reading of scripture or in my critique of the false doctrines you call "the truth."  I strongly suspect you actually fear me on that front. 

 

NOWHERE do I point to your doctrine, so no, I did not set out to "teach" you anything of God's word... I wouldn't present you the opportunity to blaspheme in response to me. 

 

I say you are a coward who fears to engage me in the scriptures, because you have seen what I will do to you.  And you have instead has chosen to maliciously attempt to place me in fear for my family and then make excuses for your bad behavior and lack of interest in biblical topics and hide behind fake repentance. I reject your excuses, since you put repentance far from you.  Don't blame the coffee, blame you corruption caused by long association with the Shepherd's Chapel. 

 

You dare not speak of the non sequiturs in the teachings of your dear sweet A. Murray.  Because then we would have to argue on a solid foundation of biblical texts.  Your writings have been trash from the beginning and I have been handicapped in having to respond to such a mountain of trash which was borne from the corruption of your thoughts.  You are Mr. "Railing Accusation."  Having nothing of substance to say you make imaginative ad hominem attacks. Then you make more ad hominem attacks based on my responses.  Having little to say of my actual remarks you only say that they are "non sequitur"  providing no example or explanation. 

 

This latest writing is nothing but another baseless rant. You say much about my internal state based on your ridiculous long-distance analysis of my internal life.  Knowing nothing but what you wish to imagine.  And in this, you have made a fool of yourself. 

 

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?

 

Bi polar?

I find that people frequently mirror their own faults on me.  And I see that very clearly in this case.  One need only look at all your emails to see the major fluctuations of your unstable mind (I would love to see the ones you have reserved, they would be but further proof of your instability).  That third email on that one day, your second to last and then your last.  I'm steady, I'm hot all the time.  I made a minor apology for a very minor amount of jesting.  You go from a mocking jabbering fool to "I repent" and back again.  You go back and forth.  You nearly make me feel bad, as though I was picking on a retarded kid or something (as you seem to suggest in my case).  But I don't think you are bi-polar, you are just a rabid, foaming at the mouth, bitter, Chapel groupie and you have been raging against me from the beginning and it still hurts, doesn't it?

 

ALL of what my purpose in engaging you has been about starts with your duplicity in your search engine link; done in such a way that draws Shepherds Chapel seekers to your anti-type website.

 

There is nothing duplicitous about it.  My website contains the most pertinent information about the Shepherd's Chapel and a very large volume of it.  My website BELONGS where it is, it is called RELEVANCE.  I've got a lot of info, pal, and it is one big HUB of information about that there can be no doubt.  There is nothing deceitful or misleading about it. You don't get to pick and choose what comes up in a search about your church, just like I can't choose and exclude stuff that comes up about me either.  You are angry, because I'm successful, not when it comes to money, no, but I have an effect on people, which you hate with a deep hatred and you felt this need to write me to foam out your rage. That is all you really are.  You have carefully avoided doctrine, not because you fear for my soul, but because you yourself are a blasphemer.  You have blasphemed me from the beginning.

 

People will see what you are, and I will trust that God will direct their judgment, as I always have trusted.  You are undone.  Write some more, please.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Tenth Reply:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:46 AM

Subject: Re: Open wide...

OOOOO-Kay  b-bye now

Emailer's Eleventh Reply:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 10:47 AM

Subject: Re: Open wide...

Oh yeah, one more thing........ i bet you hate puppies and kittens don'tcha!!

It figures !!!  

My Additional Remarks:

The last messages were a fitting end for this light and frivolous person.  After seventeen years of Chapel instruction he cannot cease his jesting and making mockery in the midst of a serious discussion.  This man has well learned of Arnold Murray the fine art of ignoring inconvenient scriptures in preference for his own perverse ways.

Ephesians 5:3-5 

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Foolish talking, Jesting, and slander, these are this man's tools and trademarks.  The Lord also sees the rest of his uncleanesses as well, which are doubtless many. 

Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page