A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: Let The Reader Decide!
The Moderator wrote:
[edit by Moderator]This post interrupted the teaching of a fundamental doctrine of this ministry in the gospel forum and was therefore moved from there to be answered separately. – The Moderator.[/edit by Moderator]
I ask the reader to be the judge. I received from Eugene Shubert the following Internet link:
If you click on it, you will discover that it leads you to a posting by "Looking Upward." As I was reading his comments about Graham Maxwell, I noticed that I was offered two choices to respond: "new topic" and "post reply." I interpreted that as an invitation to reply to Looking Upward's comments. Since the topic sounded rather interesting, I chose the "post reply" option and wrote my comments.
I appeal to the reader to make a judgment between me and Mr. Shubert: Where did I go wrong. He claims that I interrupted his teaching. First: The Internet link Shubert sent to me did not lead me to Mr. Shubert's teaching, but rather to Mr. Looking Upward comments. Second, Shubert was not teaching where the link lead me to. And third: I responded to an invitation to post a comment, which I did. Is this the way to treat visitors to Mr. Shubert's web site?
I realize that Shubert is a very intelligent and highly knowledgeable person about the Bible and Ellen G. White's writings; nevertheless, I have a suspicion that his sense of fairness needs some improvement. He claims the following about Graham Maxwell:
Quote:
I believe that Graham Maxwell is inspired by demons.
How can I believe this, when I know for a fact that Dr. Maxwell has never shown this kind of unfairness towards his listeners or followers. He was always kind, gentle, and Christ-like in the way he treated others. Isn't character what God looks for in the lives of his followers? Perhaps Shubert should read 1 Corinthians 13. It states:
Quote:
Though I have ... knowledge ... and have not charity, I am nothing.
I invite the reader to read the comments he made about me, although he doesn't know me:
Quote:
Thanks for showing yourself as such a tragic example of the power of Maxwell's mezmerizing nonsense.
Is this the way to way to treat someone who rarely visits his website. He doesn't know me, and he already knows that I am a "tragic example". Is he clairvoyant perhaps? I have been a member of the SDA Church for six decades, and I can't recall anybody treating me with such rudeness just because I happen to have a different view of another Christian.
I have a question for Eugene Shubert: I have known Graham Maxwell for over two decades. I have ample evidence that he is a Christian gentleman, and I believe that he is a SDA in good standing with the church. Are you? If not, why not? And remember that I am not judging either you or Maxwell on the basis of biblical knowledge, but rather character, which is what will determine our eternal destiny.
Today, a Moslem man came to see me and asked: Can you tell me about Seventh-day Adventists? I want to know something about your beliefs. I have known him for only two months, and he is the kindest man I have ever met. I would recommend him for heaven in spite of his Moslem background, and in spite of his ignorance about Christianity. In the way he treats others, he bears the image of God. The image of God is not in the head, but rather the heart. Tomorrow, he accepted my invitation to accompany me for Sabbath School and Worship, and he accepted the invitation to receive Bible studies.
I do not know Mr. Shubert. He might be the kindest Christian, but for me to believe this, he needs to give me some evidence of it. His knowledge of the Bible is evident, but this is not enough to convince me. I have read a couple of his postings, and I was impressed. Sometime, I would like to read a bit more, but it will have to wait, because right now I am extremely busy writing my PH. D. Dissertation in Religion.
I have one suggestion for Mr. Shubert: If you do not want visitors to inadvertently "Interrupt your teaching" in some of your forums. Do me and others a favor: Either delete the invitation to post a reply, or else [If you cannot do this] then post a warning similar to this:
Do not post your comments on this forum unless you have previous authorization by management!
This would save you and others a bad experience!
By the way, I need to correct a misinformation about Graham Maxwell: He does not send any tapes that I know to others. His admirers are the ones who do this out of courtesy to those who have requested this Christian service. It started when some of those who had listened to him moved away and were missing his teaching. It began not at the request of Maxwell, but rather as a result of the initiative of others.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:03 am Post subject: You are not welcome to quibble in heaven, midheaven, etc.
Persons who feel insulted by the theology of this reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist ministry, wishing instead to defend Satan's methods, doctrines, agents, or his sadly deceived followers, are not welcome to post in the heavenly or high mountain forums.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: Perhaps There is a Reason You Have a Virtual Jail!
You have not answered the issues I have raised. Do you expect the occasional visitor to remember the rules you have hidden somewhere in the User Agreement?
Several years elapsed between my visits to your website. How can I remember the strange rules you set up for your website? No other interactive site has these rules, and no other web site manager is as rude with their visitors as you are, and you believe that I am the one using Satan's methods?
I can understand punishing the intentional breaking of reasonable rules, but I honestly fail to comprehend the rude treatment of one who innocently breaks an unreasonable rule that defies common sense.
I made a reasonable suggestion to save you and occasional visitors from future agravation, and you respond with hell fire! Common, this is stranger than fiction!
There is one thing I am really glad: You are not in charge of the real heaven and hell. The Lord is!
Let the reader examine what I stated and decide who is the one using "Satan's methods."
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 7 Location: Where d'ya think?!? (ur brain, duh!)
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject:
Okay, so let me get this straight...
Nic Samojluk is upset because Eugene Shubert got mad at him becuase he "interrupted his teaching". And so Nic posted this outraged response (no offense, but you do sound outraged; and notice the response is not outrageous, but it sounds like you are outraged... yeah, there's a difference) accusing Eugene of being un-Christ like. I know there is more to it, but I'm not gonna type it all out.
My personal opinion:
Nic was just posting his comments. Just because he posted on Eugene's board doesn't mean the views expressed reflect Eugene's. Isn't the whole purpose of discussion to share differing views so that one's eyes can be opened to see the bigger picture? I think maybe that was a bit hasty on Eugene's part. After all, he was just posting a reply.
My personal evaluation of the situation:
While Nic accuses others of being judgmental, un-Christlike, and not very good Christians, he himself is doing the same. Once again, no offense is meant... let me explain myself further. Did Christ attack everyone who had differing views from Himself or did Him an injustice? It appears to me that this is what you are doing. And then this:
Nic Samojluk wrote:
And remember that I am not judging either you or Maxwell on the basis of biblical knowledge, but rather character, which is what will determine our eternal destiny.
In my personal opinion, it doesn't matter whether you are judging based on biblical knowledge or character, because the judging is up to God. You can't judge fairly based on biblical knowledge (which you well know), and you don't know the character of people (only God knows that), so therefore you can't judge based on that either. You yourself said that
Nic Samojluk wrote:
He doesn't know me, and he already knows that I am a "tragic example".
, meaning that you don't think it's fair for him to judge you when he hardly knows you. You don't know him any better than he knows you, and yet you can judge him.
I have to say, though, that CTC's response on this thread was rather rude...
And one more thing: I realize that Nic probably wrote these hastily, and therefore they may not reflect his true character. Which brings us back to the point: you just don't know what someone's really like.
I hope this didn't offend anyone... it is simply my personal evaluation of what's going on. There is fault and reason on both sides, and I don't think I could (nor is there reason to!) choose between "sides".
This is why our church hasn't gone farther faster--disagreements that split up the members. We are all part of one body, right? just because the eyes don't like the nose doesn't mean they can do anything about it--they have to learn how to get along with it, or else none of them will exist. What kind of bride are we for Christ? Do we want Him to come back to a bride who can't even get along with herself? If a body can't get along with itself, how will it get along with others?
So let's stop arguing right now. Let's make ourselves a temple where Christ can abide, and become fit to be His bride. _________________ Blah, blah, blah... I'll get a real signature when I have more time.
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:25 am Post subject: "Judge Fairly and Justly." [John 7:24]
This is my response to the comments posted by tuningpeg571:
Thanks for your comments. It is refreshing to hear the comments of someone who honestly tries to be fair minded in his judgement of what others have said and done. I will try to addres some of the points you have raised. You did state:
Quote:
In my personal opinion, it doesn't matter whether you are judging based on biblical knowledge or character, because the judging is up to God.
My question to you is: If God is the judge, does this mean that we should abstain from making sound judgments? It is true that Jesus stated:
Quote:
Judge not that ye be not judged. [Matthew 7:1]
Nevertheless, there is another biblical passage that clarifies this one:
Quote:
Be honest in your judgment and do not decide at a glance : but judge fairly and righteously. [John 7:24]
And this is precisely what you attempted to do with your comments, because you admit this when you say:
Quote:
My personal evaluation of the situation: ...
If judging is wrong, then we all three have committed the unpadonable sin. Shubert issued an opinon regarding Maxwell and myself; I stated my opinion about Shuberts rudeness; and you did state your "evaluation" of the two of us. You further stated the following:
Quote:
While Nic accuses others of being judgmental, un-Christlike, and not very good Christians, he himself is doing the same.
Quote:
You don't know him any better than he knows you, and yet you can judge him.
You are right! Nevertheless, you have to bear in mind that while I contrasted the kind treatment I received from Maxwell over the years with the rude way I was treated by Shubert; Mr. shubert asserted that I had been the victim of:
Quote:
Maxwell's mezmerizing nonsense.
Who
Quote:
is inspired by demons
And to top this, he sent me to the:
Quote:
The Bottomless Pit!
Can you detect the difference between suggesting that someone has been treated rudely, as opposed to insinuating that someone is under the mezmerizing influence of demons, deserving to spend the rest of eternity in the bottomles pit? I hope you can see the difference!
You need to add some additional circumstances, which you did acknoledge in your comments: I did respond to an E-mail from Shubert which led me to a posting not by Shubert but rather by someone else, and at the bottom there was another invitation to post a reply. I did respond, and got clobbered. How would you have reacted?
There was nothing there to tell me that I was treading on holy ground! In Jesus' time, the Holy Temple was surrounded with warning signs in several languages to prevent trespasers from stepping on sacred territory. Eugene has none.
How can an occasional visitor be expected to know and remember the rules he once read before registering when there are no signs to tell him he is in standing on forbidden territory? Those invitations for posting in sacred forums are in fact entrapments!
Consequently, I ask you to:
Quote:
Be honest in your judgment and do not decide at a glance : but judge fairly and righteously. [John 7:24]
Finally, you made the following comment:
Quote:
I realize that Nic probably wrote these hastily, and therefore they may not reflect his true character.
I have to slightly disagree. I did carefully choose my words, and I still feel that I was treated unfairly for the reasons I detailed above. I bear no animosity against Mr. Shubert. He might be a saint, but he needs to give me evidence of this for me to alter my opinion of him.
I do know Maxwell quite well, and I have ample evidence that he is someone I would like to have as my neighbor in heaven. If you know Mr. Shubert the way I know Mr. Maxwell, you might say the same about him. We all make mistakes, and one incident should not be the basis for judging the character of anyone!
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 7 Location: Where d'ya think?!? (ur brain, duh!)
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:20 am Post subject:
Nic Samojluk wrote:
You need to add some additional circumstances, which you did acknoledge in your comments: I did respond to an E-mail from Shubert which led me to a posting not by Shubert but rather by someone else, and at the bottom there was another invitation to post a reply. I did respond, and got clobbered. How would you have reacted?
Actually, I did mention this (I didn't know about the email part, but I did mention Eugene pointing you to a thread, you responding, and then getting clobbered for "interrupting" someone's teaching...) in the first sentence of the first paragragh (minus the "Okay, let me get this straight...").
Maybe I was wrong, but your first two comments here sounded hasty and angry. This last one, however, did not sound that way. But then again things often sound very different from how they're supposed to sound when you don't have the additional blessing of the tool of Verbal Expression to go along with words.
Anyhow, My point in posting what I did was not to bring up an old topic, but to state what a newcomer would think seeing that (being a newcomer, I felt I was qualified And to be quite frank, both "sides" of the issue seemed very nasty towards each other, but I don't know anything except what's here). Somtimes that helps people see things differently... Idk, whatever.
Please note that I was not trying to be judgmental in my post, just trying to bring in some fresh light...
Quote:
Be honest in your judgment and do not decide at a glance : but judge fairly and righteously.
Like I said, I'm not even trying to judge, but even if I were I wouldn't be able to make a completely fair judgment unless I was given the emails which traveled back and forth on this topic, the comments the Nic made on the particular thread (which are no longer there, or at least I didn't see them), and anything else, so that I knew exactly what had gone on from the beginning. But just glancing over this one thread where everyone seems to be mad at each other, it is not even possible for me to make a fair and righteous judgment.
But it doesn't really matter because that's not what I'm trying to do.
Okay, sorry for the rambling... that got a little longer than I had anticipated. :D _________________ Blah, blah, blah... I'll get a real signature when I have more time.
Thanks for your quick response! You seem to be fair minded, and I do thank you for this. You state the following:
Quote:
Like I said, I'm not even trying to judge, but even if I were I wouldn't be able to make a completely fair judgment unless I was given the emails which traveled back and forth on this topic, the comments the Nic made on the particular thread (which are no longer there, or at least I didn't see them), and anything else, so that I knew exactly what had gone on from the beginning.
This is quite easy to figure out. The E-mail I did receive from Shubert contained an invitation to click on the following link:
I did click on the link and was faced with some comments posted--not by Shubert--but by someone else identified as "Looking Upward". You can click on it and verify the accuracy of what I am saying. Remember also that when I received that link, a long time had elapsed from my previous visit to Mr. Shubert's website.
When I finished reading the post, I noticed that there was an invitation to post a comment in response, which I did. The following day, I did receive another E-mail from shubert with a link leading to this thread located at the "Bottomles Pit." I discovered that the comment I posted was moved to this dreadful place. Evidently, Mr. Shubert did not want the readers to read my comments in defense of Dr. Maxwell.
The accusation against me is that I did interrupt the teaching of a fundamental teaching, a teaching based on the false notion that that Dr. Maxwell is inspited by demons:
Quote:
This post interrupted the teaching of a fundamental doctrine of this ministry in the gospel forum and was therefore moved from there to be answered separately.
I believe that the evidence shows that I did not interrupt Dr. shubert's teaching. I had no idea that Shubert had started that particular thread. The link he sent to me led me to a posting by "Looking Upward," who is the one who had interrupted Mr. Shubert's teaching.
I did respond with my own posting for the simple reason that there was an invitation at the botton of "Looking Upward's" comments to post a comment. Where did I go wrong? Mr. "Looking Upward" did interrupt Mr. Shuberts teaching but was not reprimanded because he agreed with Shubert. I was punished because I dared to disagree. And remember that I know Dr. Maxwell one hundred times better than Shubert, but he doen't want others to testify in Maxwell's favor.
I believe that the most serious offense for Mr. Shubert was my unwillingness to agree with him that Dr. Maxwel was
Quote:
inspired by demons
which is a terrible offense for a man of God; someone who has devoted his entire life to the service of God, and whose character, according to my human judgment, is impecable. He always treated me with the utmost dignity in the time I have known him for several decades.
I hope this helps! You can also click on "search" and type the word "Maxwell." You will find what Shubert had said about Dr. Maxwell, and the way I have tried to defend his honour which had been maligned by Mr. Shubert.
My sin was to defend the good name of a man of God! Wouldn't you have done the same?
May the good Lord bless you in what you do for him!
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 7 Location: Where d'ya think?!? (ur brain, duh!)
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject:
Actually, I clicked on the link before I even posted here at all... and I definately see your point there.
Being new here, I hesitate to say anything further, for I do not know Shubert at all, and I don't want to say something I may regret later.
I will say this, though. Being in your situation, if someone said something sladerous about a person I firmly believed to be a devout man of God, I would have most definately said something in his defense, and especially if I had been given an invitation to do so.
However, if I strongly believed that a particular person was a false teacher, and I was trying to warn others, and then someone came along and tried to excuse him saying he was not a false teacher, then if it was in my control I would probably have done something similar to what Mr. Shubert did...
Like I said earlier, both sides of this issue have legitimate reason to feel the way they do. I honestly don't see the point in dwelling upon this topic further, as it just seems to stir up feelings of hurt, anger, and strife between parties. Maybe I'm wrong, though? _________________ Blah, blah, blah... I'll get a real signature when I have more time.
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: Let's Forgive and Forget!
I agree! My attitude is: Let's forgive and forget. Actually I had forgotten about this until you posted your comments, and I received an E-mail notifying me about your comments.
I bear no animosity towards Eugene Shubert. He is a human being like other great men of god who made mistakes in the past. I do make mistakes as well. If I expect God to forgive me for my shortcoming, I need to be willing to do the same.
This does not take away from Shubert's need to post some warnings for individuals like I am who visit his website only occasionally and may have trouble remembering all the rules he has, especially as pertains to the sacred sections of his website where the posting of opposing views are not allowed.
Like I said, I'm not even trying to judge, but even if I were I wouldn't be able to make a completely fair judgment unless I was given the emails which traveled back and forth on this topic, the comments the Nic made on the particular thread (which are no longer there, or at least I didn't see them), and anything else, so that I knew exactly what had gone on from the beginning.
Please note that the opening post of this later thread is dated Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:08 pm and that it too was removed from our teaching forum. It seems that Nic Samojluk ignored the reply he received in the courtroom forum and, in his efforts to continue posting where he isn't welcome to teach, decided to follow the spirit of cyberterrorism. The record shows that he attempted to continue posting his unwelcome whining and misrepresentations in our sacred gospel forum.
I have no sympathy for Nic Samojluk's unreasoning mind and failing memory. He has been told many times and on numerous occasions that the disciples of Maxwell are not authorized to post in our heavenly forums.
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:45 am Post subject: At The Bottomless Pit
Mr. Shubert: What are you doing at the bottomless pit? I thought this dreadful place was reserved for those unfit for the heavenly places! Forgive me for this light moment! Now for the serious business at hand:
Nevertheless, since you have decided to visit us, I suppose I have the opportunity to ask you a few questions and hope to get some answers. I Hope you will have the dignity of responding in the same "Bottomles Pit" venue instead of moving what I am posting elsewhere where those who are familiar with our dispute can never find it!
A. Isn't it true that common sense and fairness dictates that you should have some warning signs around your "heavenly places" to prevent unwary individuals from trespassing? I have asked this question before more than once, but you keep avoiding it! In Jesus time, the Jewish priests had numerous warning posted around the sacred portions of the Temple in several languages to warn unwary visitors. Can you learn from the Bible?
B. Isn't it true that the main reason you created your heavenly places is to avoid opposing views to be presented there? My main sin was to defend the honor of a man of God: Dr. Maxwell. A man who dedicated his whole life to the service of God.
C. Isn't it true that common sense dictates that you shoud either delete the option for visitors to post their comments in your heavenly places or else have clear warning that oppossing views are forbidden?
D. Does it make sense for you to have in your rules, which are hidden somewhere in your website, a prohibition for posting in your heavenly places, and then have an option for posting a response there?
E. Isn't it true that I suggested on several occasions that you have either some warning for occasion visitors not to post on your heavenly places or else remove the option to post?
F. Isn't it true that I complimented you for the impressive website you had on several occasions and that I did try respectfully to offer some suggestions in order to prevent unwary visitors from making the same mistake I had made?
G. Isn't it true that the reason I trespassed after you removed my comment to the "Bottomless Pit" was to ask for you to place a link to my comments so that those readers might find what I had written in defense of Dr. Maxwell?
H. Isn't it true that my first trespass was motivated by the fact that I had not seen any sign or warning that I was on sacred ground, while faced with an invitation to post a reply? Isn't it also true that I later apologized to you for this?
I. Was it fair for you to malign the character of a man of God like Dr. Maxwell and forbid anybody from defending him on your forum?
J. Was it wrong for me to step in the defense of an innocent man who was mercilessly being crucified by you?
K. If you were so see an innocent person being mercilessly clobbered inside a church, would it be wrong for a bystander to intervene in defense of the victim? Could the attacker argue that he was doing this on sacred ground? Is character assassination allowed on sacred ground?
All I can say is to repeat what Jacob said to Laban when they parted for the last time: "May the Lord judge between you and me!"
In my previous posting I suggested that we opt for forgiveness. If we don't, we may end both in the real--not virtual--and final "Bottomless Pit." Do you accept my offer of forgiveness to you?
Those who know me well would deny that I would fabricate something like this. Whether you actually sent this link, or whether your website sends this automatically to those who have been following a particular thread is for you to decide, but I did receive said link, and it led me directly to a posting--not by you--but by "Looking Upward."
There were no signs indicating that I was treading on sacred ground, and when I had finished reading it, I was faced with an invitation to post a comment, which I did, and my comments were sent to the "Bottomless Pit." Those comments of mine in defense of Dr. Maxwell you did not want your readers to see.
This action of yours prompted me to request that at least, for fairness sake, a link would be placed to my comments. You call this a trespass. I don't! Sorry to say, but we have a totally different sense of fairness.
In spite of this, I am offering you the chance of accepting my forgiveness. The ball is in your court!
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 7 Location: Where d'ya think?!? (ur brain, duh!)
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject:
Nic Samojluk wrote:
In spite of this, I am offering you the chance of accepting my forgiveness. The ball is in your court!
Of course, you can still forgive Eugene even if he doens't accept it. It is possible to forgive someone and not even tell them. _________________ Blah, blah, blah... I'll get a real signature when I have more time.
Of course, you can still forgive Eugene even if he doens't accept it. It is possible to forgive someone and not even tell them.
You are right. Nevertheless, Nic thinks that offering forgiveness is a better approach.
Nic asked me to respond to your posting because when he tried to do this, he discovered that his membership had been placed on an inactive basis. He thinks that Mr. Shubert must have done this in response to Nic's latest posting on this thread. Nic thinks that Mr. Shubert must have a short temper, how else can you explain his strange reaction. How else can you inderstand him doing this after sending him to the bottomless pit for no good reason?
I have known Nic since childhood. I was born in Privitne, Ukraine, Nic's hometown. He is a second generation Seventh-day Adventist and a respected member of the church. He is now retired, but he did work for the church for many years both in Argentina and the U.S. His brother is a retired SDA pastor, and one of his nephews holds an important position at the Division office in Brazil. All his immediate family and close relatives are members of the church in good standing.
According to Nic, his major disagreement with Shubert started when he made en effort to defend the good name of Graham Maxwell, whose teaching was maligned by Eugene. I do know Dr. Maxwell as well, and I can verify that he has faithfully served the SDA denomination with distinction. He might be mistaken in some theological detail, but he can never be classified as one inspired by the Devil!
The other point of disagreement has to do with Nic's insistent request that Mr. Shubert take the precaution of posting warning signs around the sacred places where he doesn't tolerate any disagreements. I guess Nic tried to defend Pastor Maxwell there, which Mr. Shubert didn't like. I think Nic's suggestion is a good one, because occasional visitors to his site can't remember exactly what sections of his website are sacred where only flattering comments are permitted.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
