Email 222j - "One of Your Statements" - Arnold Murray's False Claims to Virtue Examined

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

Email 222j - "One of Your Statements" - Arnold Murray's False Claims to Virtue Examined

Question/Comment:

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

From: Emailer #214

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:51 PM

Subject: One of your statements..

Someone sending an email to you reflected the following

"Pastor Murray will not speak specifically against nor take questions condemning other religions or religious leaders. That alone puts him way above you."

Your response was.

"Above ME? Dr. Murray places himself above the Apostle Paul and Christ when he teaches that it is wrong to declare false religions and teachers to be what they are, and to do it specifically, by name. It is very convenient for him to make criticizing people a sin, but it is not a biblical doctrine."

I say.

Pastor Murray did not teach that it was wrong to declare false religions and teachers to be what they are as you reflect in your response, Paul.

Pastor Murray simply stated he would not answer questions about another religion on the TV because it is not necessary and it served no purpose.

He believed in letting his teaching speak for itself rather than naming a specific false religion or teacher. He did not want his ministry on the TV to become a target of some wack job or starting an pizzing contest with someone or having to go to court being sued for libel.

Where is it reflected in scripture that refusing to accuse a suspected false teacher and/or religion on a national television program is wrong making the person not doing so someone who thinks he/she is above Jesus and Paul the apostle?

Book chapter and verse please.

Thank you.

My First Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Emailer #214

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 3:00 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

Emailer #214, It seems you have recovered your sanity. Excellent. This is more like it. I will answer you in detail. I suggest you read all of it. Because I'm demonstrating what I said before: you don't have what it takes to engage in a biblical debate with me.

Pastor Murray did not teach that it was wrong to declare false religions and teachers to be what they are as you reflect in your response, Paul.

Pastor Murray simply stated he would not answer questions about another religion on the TV because it is not necessary and it served no purpose.

Implicit in his refusal to do this is the idea that what he was doing was more virtuous. I will explain this fully, but the effect on his students is manifest in the quote you provided:

"Pastor Murray will not speak specifically against nor take questions condemning other religions or religious leaders. That alone puts him way above you."

This person has been taught a particular moral position. Basically that this single factor makes one man morally superior to another. That is remarkable. Where did he get this idea? It was suggested to him by the actions and words of one man: Pastor Arnold Murray. Because nowhere in the doctrine of Christ is any such sentiment ever expressed nor hinted at in any way.

When Pastor Murray says that he never speaks against another ministry or religion he is teaching a moral example. And people who study with him take the lesson. They come away believing that Pastor Murray is doing the Christian thing by refusing to speak against other ministries. By declaring what he is doing, he is instructing his students in a form of morality which he says he approves of, and by doing this he implies that the action he is taking is a morally superior action to the opposite action.  So these actions, and his declaration that he is taking these actions are a clear form of teaching intended to communicate that Arnold Murray engages in morally superior behavior.

Arnold Murray did this so his students would see himself as being more virtuous than anyone who dared to speak against his ministry. And anyone who is critical of Arnold Murray is immediately judged by his students to be doing something low and unchristian based on that fact alone. But ultimately he also sets himself in opposition to Christ and the Apostles, and also sets himself above them, as I will demonstrate by the scriptures, as you requested.

Pastor Murray did not teach that it was wrong to declare false religions and teachers to be what they are as you reflect in your response, Paul.

Yes, he did. You are wrong.  By declaring his actions, he was not only setting a moral example, he was actively teaching one.

He could have just DONE IT. Do you know what I mean? Instead of tooting his own horn all the time. As he is endlessly fond of doing.  Murray could have just refused to speak against other ministries or teachers without sounding a trumpet before himself. "Hey! Look at me! I refuse to speak against other ministries! Am I not morally superior?" There are tons of guys who do that humbly. Ever notice? I have noticed. The majority of ministers never speak against other ministers or ministries by name. The chief difference is that Arnold Murray liked to toot his own horn and made himself a name for "not talking against other ministries."

He had to DECLARE that he never spoke against other ministries. He was not able to just do that humbly, he had to shoot his mouth off every chance he got about what a great man he was for never speaking against another church or ministry. But most TV preachers, even the bad ones, never do that either. The irony is that he was a hypocrite who criticized other ministries constantly, only without mentioning names. Which renders his whole boast pointless.

This was a self- serving convenience because he spoke against other ministries and churches all the time. He did it in a deceptive way by sounding a trumpet before himself declaring that he was not doing what he was actually doing.

He would teach that any church that does not teach "who the Kenites are," is not a church that Christ is pleased with. He does not have to name the ministries specifically, that would take hours! But He speaks out about "other religions" all the time. He is just careful to avoid naming the group or teacher, but makes clear enough references for his students to discern who they are. How many churches wear "backward collars?" He also basically criticized anyone with the style "Reverend." And then he would hypocritically toot his own horn about how he never speaks against other ministers or ministries. There is no biblical precident for all this beating around the bush he does. His moralizing about speaking against other ministries is an example of his manipulation and subtlety, it is not a moral example at all.

There are two remarkable things about Pastor Murray "not speaking against other ministries". 1) It was remarkable that he tooted his horn all the time about it, 2). it was also remarkable because it was not true, he spoke against other ministries constantly, albeit without mentioning names.

Murray subtly manipulated people. (He actually teaches subtlety, just listen to his "seed planting" tapes). He was always talking about himself and making himself out to be superior to other ministries. Even though 90% of ministries often did the same things he did, and did them essentially the same way but without sounding the trumpet before themselves. Who begs? Seriously. Who begs? I've seen plenty of ministers that never beg. The MAJORITY don't beg. Sure, they politely ask for donations to support the ministry, but so did Murray. He did it every single broadcast. It was Hypocrisy.

Matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

He believed in letting his teaching speak for itself rather than naming a specific false religion or teacher.

He did not let his teaching speak for itself. That is not true either. He certainly TALKED about doing that. But that is another example of him tooting his own horn again and turning around and doing the opposite thing!

Most teachers let their teaching speak for itself, I see that all the time, no big deal.   Ministries that go after false teachers are a minority. But Murray spent a lot of time going after the teachings of other Christians. Just consider the way he constantly went after the rapture doctrine. Letting his teachings speak for themselves would have been to simply teach what the bible really says without reference to what other people teach. But he constantly used the teachings of other ministries as an opposing basis for his teachings. Not that I think it is wrong to do that, what is wrong is that he would hypocritically say, "I let my teachings speak for themselves."

He liked to say things that he thought made him look good, and he liked to be critical of other people's beliefs, and to go after those beliefs instead of letting his teaching speak for itself.   That is the truth about Arnold Murray.

Just like how he always tried to tell people how "private" he was while all the time mentioning his Marine Corps background every change he got.

And of course I have stacks and stack of his cassettes with the name "Dr. Arnold Murray" emblazoned across the top. He loved to call himself Doctor until people started snooping. How come he is not as proud of his Doctorate as he is about his marine crops background? Being blind to his own hypocrisy was one of Murray's biggest faults. He loved to toot his own horn, usually without merit.

He did not want his ministry on the TV to become a target of some wack job or starting an pizzing contest with someone or having to go to court being sued for libel.

There is no chance of getting sued for libel for saying you think so-and-so is a false teacher because of what they honestly teach. If I go out and say "John Hagee is a false teacher because he teaches the rapture doctrine." John Hagee will never find a lawyer that will take that as a libel suit. Libel would be to say "John Hagee teaches that Jesus was not divine." That would be libel. In a biblical debate people are entitled to their opinion you can't sue them for saying you are a false teacher. Show me the record of some such suit. As far as libel goes, this is closer to libel:

"I'll bet you drink chicken blood during your sacrifices to your god, Beelzebub."

Since Pastor Murray does not really teach Christian virtue or godliness, it is not surprising that his students think nothing of committing libel. I bet if I went after some other false TV Pastor, (Charles Stanley, John Hagee, Take your pick), I would not get one person who was wacky enough to write something like that.

Also, When Pastor Murray sets such and example, and declares what he is doing, he does not say "I do this because I fear libel." I do not recall him ever saying that.

"Above ME? Dr. Murray places himself above the Apostle Paul and Christ when he teaches that it is wrong to declare false religions and teachers to be what they are, and to do it specifically, by name. It is very convenient for him to make criticizing people a sin, but it is not a biblical doctrine."

Where is it reflected in scripture that refusing to accuse a suspected false teacher and/or religion on a national television program is wrong making the person not doing so someone who thinks he/she is above Jesus and Paul the apostle?

First of all, your question is a rewording of my statement which significantly changes the meaning, I will provide the proof for what I actually said. I did not say that someone who refuses to "accuse a false teacher" is placing themselves above Paul and Christ.   I said that someone who TEACHES that it is wrong to accuse a false teacher by name is placing himself above Paul and Christ. You are swapping out what I said about Pastor Murray's teaching and substituting your own straw-man question. I will explain the difference to you.

If someone simply refuses to speak out against a false teacher, depending on circumstances, they may be disobeying the scriptures, but I would not say they are placing themselves above Paul and Christ. In any case, I would not say that Murray even fits this description since he was always going after what he believed were false teachings all the time.

I do not think it is always necessary to name the false teachers. Especially in cases where thousands of teachers teach the same thing. But Pastor Murray is a special case. Much like other cults of personality. (Herbert W. Armstrong comes to mind). When the teachings are very specific to an individual or the individual is doing a great deal of harm on their own, it is perfectly acceptable, and even preferable to name the person.

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

Teachers are examples. Are they not? You have been trying to make me adhere to a higher standard because I am a teacher. I submit to that.   In fact, when I post our conversations, I will probably add comments here and there explaining where I thought I could have done a better job. That is part of my example, I am not afraid of admitting if I spoke roughly when I ought to have been gentle.

Well, when Pastor Murray says that he never speaks against another ministry or religion he is setting a moral example as a teacher. Also, by declaring he is doing something, he is actively instructing his students in that form of morality, and implicit in that instruction is the idea that the action he is taking is a morally superior action to opposite actions.   He sounds the trumpet before himself precisely because he wants to show people that his actions are morally superior to the actions of others. So these actions, and the declaration of these actions are a clear form of teaching intended to communicate moral superiority.

That is where he places himself above Paul and above Christ. Because both Paul and Christ spoke against opposing religions and religious leaders frequently. They spoke against their doctrines and they spoke against their religions by name and named the men and movements who taught false doctrine. To declare as a teacher that "I never speak against another ministries" is to imply that there is virtue in your actions, and since this particular "virtue" is in opposition to the actions of Christ and His Apostles, it implies a morally superiority to Christ and His Apostles.

Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

In this passage Christ is clearly portrayed as naming two sects whose doctrines He declared we should specifically beware of. When Murray specifically declares that he will not speak against other ministries his actions imply that the morally superior position is to do what he says he does and not what Christ did. Christ consistently took another route. Christ is the true example of Moral superiority. The bible does not teach the moral example Murray attempts to clothe himself in.

Pastor Murray is an odd character because of his hypocrisy. He says "I never criticize other ministries" and then does it every day. He says, "I let my teachings speak for themselves." And then proceeds to use the teachings of others for the basis of his bible studies.   Did Christ let his teachings speak for themselves? Or did Christ go after the enemies of truth?

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

The whole Chapter in Matthew 23 is a teaching based on the errors of the scribes and Pharisees. Matthew 6 is also similar.

Christ routinely names the sects he disagrees with. Christ is morally superior to Arnold Murray's teaching. Arnold Murray's teaching is the sort that exalts itself above the knowledge of Christ. Christ teaches us one thing. But Arnold teaches the opposite. He actually does this on a number of issues.

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

If you do not rebuke sinners, it means you hate them. And God commanded us to love our neighbors.

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.

Where in the bible does it ever suggest that we should only "let our teachings speak for themselves" or that we ought not mention the ministries of those that corrupt the Gospel of Jesus Christ be name? I already know the answer. NONE

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's First Reply:

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

From: Emailer #214

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 4:43 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

That was a wacked response, chicken blood guzzler.

We'll just have to allow people stumbling onto your site to tune in to the Shepherd's chapel and decide for themselves, eh?

What a wonderful idea. Don't you think?

My Second Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Emailer #214

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:36 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

Emailer #214 , I thought as much. You are not willing to intelligently grapple with the ideas in my writings. You are inevitably forced to call me silly names and make sweeping negative pronouncements about what I wrote (it was a "wacked response"). I understand why. It is actually impossible for you to argue with my response. What I have said is manifestly indisputable. So you are forced to simply say it is "wacked." And thump your chest about how much you want people to read it. What else can you do?

I am glad to let people decide for themselves. That is why I present the facts about the Shepherd's Chapel and Arnold Murray and that is why I take letters like yours. It is to demonstrate to people that the students of the Shepherd's Chapel are incapable of defending the teachings of Arnold Murray. As you have just so aptly demonstrated. Thank you for contributing.

I know I am not likely to convince you or people like you. But you will convince other people that I am right for me, because you cannot respond to me. And that is really all there is to it.

People will read your response. (And they know what I said is not wacked, they are not stupid). They will want to see what you have to say about it. They will be wondering if there is some error in my thinking that you might be able to point out that they cannot see. But you have disappointed them again and gone back to empty talking.

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Second Reply:

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

From: Emailer #214

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:54 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

"Intelligence" has nothing to do with anything you have written, Paul. You're a wack job who THINKS he is an intellectual. Because you THINK you are intelligent, you never will be. That is a fact, buddy.

Sorry to be the guy breaking the news to you.

Emailer's additional Reply:

My Third Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Emailer #214

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 2:58 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

I'm usually good at deciphering the words of people who cannot effectively communicate their ideas.

"I'm not confusing the attitude your postings ooze with anything but what I have stated."

You are not confusing "the attitude which "oozes" from my posts" with anything but what you have stated? That means that you are saying that you are confusing what you stated with the attitude of my posts. But this cannot be what you meant. But that is what you wrote. Do you seriously think people are going to think I am the one with the problem here?

Again, you have mistaken what you think is your "discernment" with your overwhelming sense of knowing more than well studied, knowledgeable scholars, i.e. your ego.

I have mistaken discernment for Ego? But I never spoke of discernment.

This is something I call argumentum ad ego. Argument to the Ego. It is a very common device. It is a form of ad hominem attack. It works this way: The assailant (that would be you) attacks the subject's intelligence (the subject would be me) When the subject defends his intelligence, the assailant makes the argument that the subject is on a delusional ego-trip. It is transparently false. I suppose I'm supposed to sit here and say "I am not an intelligent human being" and say "When it comes to intellect, I am more akin to a brute beast."

Also, suggesting I need medication is another simple ad hominem attack, which is like a sugar high. It makes you feel good for about 5 minutes, but leaves you empty inside. It will also leave the people who read this particular conversation with the distinct impression that you are incapable of responding to my well-reasoned points. Which they will see as well reasoned. Which your points are not, because, after the initial message, you stopped using reason and merely attempt to sling muck at me. But it won't stick.

Consider this last exchange. Your words are barely comprehensible. As one who was told from his youth that he was a gifted writer, and who scored a perfect score on the reading comprehension portion of his ACT (but who does know he makes mistakes), I can tell you that the problem is not with my understanding of what you write. The defect is in your communication.

In my experience, intellect can create ego problems. but lack of intellect, even more so. Some men long after what was not given them and they attempt to intrude into the word of God, and not being led of the spirit of God, they fall prey to imaginations and lying spirits. (And they sometimes lack the intellect to perceive it)

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Arnold Murray's statements about "I never beg" and "I never talk about denominations" and "don't listen to this man" are all contradicted by his actions. They are "VOLUNTARY HUMILITY" He voluntarily tells you how humble he is, he makes a show of it. But his actions are totally contrary. Wake up.

your overwhelming sense of knowing more than well studied, knowledgeable scholars

What scholars? You mean Scholar. Arnold Murray. Again, I do not think I "know more" than Arnold Murray. What I have discovered is that he is not a scholar. I do not claim to be a scholar or to know more than scholars. But one does not need to be a Doctor to know when one is sealing with a Quack! Scholars do not agree with Murray. Not only that, I have demonstrated on several occasions that Murray is not a competent bible scholar. He does not even properly use the Strong's concordance. I know because I have read the instructions at the beginning of the book. If Arnold Murray does not even understand the proper use of a tool designed for lay-persons such as myself. It is manifest that his scholarship is just ego. That is the only ego we are dealing with in this conversation.

Arnold Murray is one of the most ego driven preachers on the air. he makes all kinds of boasts about himself as I have detailed in my earlier messages. As I warned you before, even if people agreed with you that I need to get on some medications. They would still see that I have made some very carefully constructed arguments about Pastor Murray and his teachings which you were not able to respond to at all other than to say I had an ego problem.

Let's agree, I have an ego problem. I will go take two aspirin immediately and seek medical attention as soon as practicable. So now that we are agreed, how about we discuss the topic at hand: Arnold Murray's teachings.

Having won the battle of the Egos surely you have something to say in defense of Arnold Murray's ego problem? You know, how he always has to sound the trumpet before himself, bragging about how he never takes a salary "for teaching" and how he "never begs" and how he "never speaks against any denomination" You brought up ego, and I think you nailed it on the head. Arnold Murray had a major ego problem and thought he knew more than well studied competent bible scholars and teachers fluent in Hebrew and Greek. His ego fueled delusions caused him to predict that antichrist would appear in the early 80's and he was wrong. Arnold is a documented false prophet.

Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Third Reply:

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

From: Emailer #214

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 3:31 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

Bragging about how "good" and "smart" you are again. Wow, you need psychiatric attention, and you need it NOW!

How "good" and "smart" are you in detecting when someone is yanking your chain?

Not real "good" or "smart" in that area I suspect.

Oh, wait, let me guess...

My Fourth Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Emailer #214

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 5:03 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

I never said I was "good." It is dishonest of you to put that word in quotes (and you said Chapel students were not dishonest, I have found the opposite is true, frequently). I said I was good at deciphering, anyone can read the evidence for themselves. That is not the same as claiming that I am "good."

What you fail to detect is that my whole website is a giant yank on YOUR chain. And you fell for it. You have given me what I wanted. Thank you. I think it is comical that you came here thinking you would troll me and get the better of me. "Yabba dabba do!" and all that. I eventually got you to bring up a legitimate topic, and you gave me another opportunity to make my case against Arnold Murray's teachings. Just as I wanted.

You may think that you are trolling me to get me to comment on your ridiculous comments, and you think you are, "wasting my time." That is not what is happening. What trolls like you fail to understand is that nice people universally despise trolls. Maybe you have a few buddies who will pat you on the back and snigger with you for "provoking" me to write all this, but what you fail to see is that I enjoy this. Not only that, every word I write increases the content of my webpage, every mention of Pastor Arnold Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel increases the relevance of my web pages on the search engines. All this is unique content, relevant to Shepherd's Chapel, and you are helping me construct it.

In any case, your argument against me seems to be that people should not listen to me because I think I'm smart and good. When, according to Pastor Murray, it is impossible for me to be smart or good at anything, because all the smart and skilled people agree with him when they hear him. Therefore I cannot be smart nor skillful because I do not agree with Pastor Murray. Only stupid people disagree with Pastor Murray. That is the logic of Shepherd's Chapel. (Stupid or willfully evil)

My argument is that my statement which you originally wrote me about is correct (i.e. that when Pastor Murray teaches that it is wrong to be critical of other denominations he is setting himself up as morally superior to Christ and His Apostles.)

And my further argument is that you have nothing to say about that. All you do is argue that I think I'm smart, and that I am not smart, and that therefore no one is going to listen to what I say. Interesting argument. It is a logical fallacy called the ad hominem attack. Basically you say what I say cannot be true because I have a flaw unrelated to the truth of what is being discussed. (In other words, how does a stupid dummy like me keep running rings around the giant brain of Emailer #214?)

Also you suggest I require psychiatric care. Another futile ad hominem attack. I guess you found your one note and you are going to keep tooting it.

Emailer's Fourth Reply:

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

From: Emailer #214

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 5:30 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

You "implied", same thing as when you state Murray teaches by implication.

My Fifth Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Emailer #214

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:52 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

So you are saying that by my saying that I was "good at deciphering" I was implying that I was a "good" in the sense that God only is good? No, that is not sensible. You have got apples and oranges mixed up there.

When I say "I am good at deciphering" the only thing I'm implying is that I have skill at decipherment. One might read into that statement the notion that I think being able to decipher badly written statements is a desirable skill. That would be reasonable. But it is clearly a non sequitur to say that by indicating skill in decipherment I was in any way implying that such skill makes one a morally good being.

Also... this has to be taken as admission that you know I was correct from the beginning. You understand fully that Pastor Arnold Murray was teaching by example implying that it was virtuous to refuse to speak out against denominations and false teachers by name. So I was right.

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Fifth Reply:

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

From: Emailer #214

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:00 PM

Subject: Re: One of your statements..

You're a farmer, aren't you, Pauly?

That is a noble profession. However raising and selling pigs as food prolly ain't such a good idea. Why not raise chickens or turkey instead?

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

From: Emailer #214

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:06 PM

Subject: Pigs

Raising pigs ain't farming Paul. Do you raise, sell and eat swine flesh, Paul?

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

From: Emailer #214

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:09 PM

Subject: Religious leaders...

You claim on your site to be a "religious leader". Who follows your lead, Paul?

You really are wacked!! Mr. " leader"...Ha!!!

Obviously this was a change of subject, for once, I got the last word. But of course, ultimately, I always have the last word, because it is my website and I will comment as necessary.

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