Raf

Reminds me of something I said a couple of years ago: we spent more time discerning the number of crosses on the side than the significance of the cross in the middle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:

I'm really enjoying this thread! :D-->

BTW, I don't look like my avatar either. ;)-->

---

According to my avatar, I currently resemble a red x.

So if I become a judge, can I wear a robe that says "Black Power" on it while presiding over a trial involving a hate crime? Hmm?

18 of my 19 students passed their (standardized) grammar tests this semester! Woohoo!

Because you asked nicely.

In most cases, any one of these would be insufficient to prove plagiarism. Taken as a whole, however, the evidence is devastating.

Steve is correct. Some obvious examples:

"The Counsel of the Lord" in the Blue Book borrows heavily, without citation, from Bullinger.

The first chapter of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today begins with rampant plagiarism from JE Stiles. The Q&A in the same book was modeled after Stiles' Q&A (perfectly fair) and included at least one question and answer block which was heavily lifted from Stiles (not fair). For those wondering, it's question 8.

Order My Steps in Thy Word lifts liberally from EW Kenyon (interestingly, in the very same chapter, Wierwille credits Kenyon with a rather lengthy story. THAT was not plagiarism, but the passages that preceded it were clearly plagiarized).

There are other examples, but the point's made, no?

What do you mean by "The Upper Room Theory"? That the 120 were in the upper room? I personally think Wierwille got that right (and have seen other, independent studies suggest the same thing).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biblefan Dave:

Maybe we should clarify things somewhat. If I were to used material that our authors had written for my own personal use, I never had to credit the source. If I were to compile some information and share it with family and friends, I would not have to cite sources.

---

Correct. You can also lie to your family and it's not perjury. It's still wrong, but it's not perjury. Using material by another author without crediting the other author is dishonest. "Hey, honey, I wrote you this poem: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day..." It's just plain old flat out lying. I'm not saying your personal letters have to come with footnotes. But dishonesty is dishonesty no matter what.

quote:

---

As soon as I attempt to make to market or to a profit from my compilations of material, then my must have cited my sources. Then, that is plagiarism.

---

Incorrect. It is plagiarism if you publish (aka, publicize) your work, regardless of whether you make a profit off it. You can plagiarize in a letter to the editor. They don't pay you for it, but they publish it, and that makes you a plagiarist. If you plagiarized for a pamphlet and gave it away on the street corner, that's still plagiarism. The level of profit is immaterial.

quote:

---

Simply using someone else's material is not wrong, selling it without citing sources is not wrong.

---

2. Yes it is. 1. Depends on what you mean by "simply using." I don't credit the inventors of the alphabet everytime I begin an article. But the moment I'm expressing someone else's ideas in their words, it's incumbent upon me to cite the source.

quote:

---

As long as a book is in the public domain, it is never wrong to use material written in that book.

---

You're missing the point. Any one of us can publish a King James Bible, as it's no longer copyrighted. However, if I were to distribute a Bible called "The King James Bible, by Rafael Olmeda" that contains nothing but the King James Bible text, I have committed plagiarism, even though the "original author(s)" are long dead.

quote:

---

I am free to use a sentence from one book or a phrase from another book, if I don't try to sell the material.

---

Depends in large measure on the uniqueness of the combination of words you're using. I am not foolish enough to believe that every word combination I've ever used is original, but if I ever try to pass off "I think, therefore I am" as my own saying, then I'd be correctly labeled a plagiarist.

quote:

---

Also, there is such a thing as common knowledge. A book mentions that hydrogen plus oxygen produces water. That is common knowledge, thus there is no reason to cite the source. If a person reads that Lincoln was the President during the time of the Civil War, that is common knowledge and need not be cited. If there is some uniqueness and/or originality to the writings, the sources must always be cited.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

That is legal plagiarism.

---

Incorrect. The analysis was riddled with error.

quote:

---

In academic standards, using someone else's term paper which with a few rephrasing of words and claiming it to be one's own would be considered cheating, academically.

---

Correct. This is more to the point of what Wierwille did than most other explanations.

quote:

---

Even if the person never profited from their paper, copying it and making small revisions would be academic plagiarism and could result in academic penalties.

---

Correct.

This one is almost amusing.

This dispatch from Mobile, Alabamie.

quote:

---

Judge wears Ten Commandments on his robe

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

By CONNIE BAGGETT

Staff Reporter

A rural Alabama judge began wearing a robe embroidered with the Ten Commandments to his Andalusia courtroom this week, echoing the statement made by the state Supreme Court chief justice ousted over a Ten Commandments display.

Covington County Presiding Circuit Court Judge Ashley McKathan said he ordered the robe and had it embroidered using his own money. He said he did it because he felt strongly that he should stand up for his personal religious convictions.

"Truth is an absolute value," McKathan said, "and you can't divorce the law from the truth. I feel we must resist the modern attempts to discount the truth."

Roy Moore lost his job as Alabama's top jurist in late 2003 for defying a federal court order calling for removal of a stone monument of the Ten Commandments that he ordered placed in the rotunda of the state Supreme Court building.

Moore's monument became a focal point for nationwide debate over religion's place in government and Moore emerged as an icon to Christian conservatives.

Attorney Riley Powell of Andalusia and Gulf Shores said Tuesday he filed a motion objecting to the robe in a case before McKathan.

"I was representing an airline pilot who was accused of driving under the influence," Powell said. "It's not that I am anti-Christian in the least. In fact, on a personal level I respect what Judge McKathan is doing very much.

"It's just the robe has created a great distraction in the courtroom with media present and cameras. And when the judge wears his personal views on his chest, does that influence the jury?" Powell asked. "Does it send a signal or change what a juror's own beliefs might be? My client is entitled to a trial without that distraction or those issues."

McKathan denied the motion objecting to the robe and another motion asking for a delay in the trial, Powell said.

The robe is black with gold letterring less than an inch tall on the chest. Powell said he has known McKathan for many years and has never known him to do anything to seek publicity.

Larry Darby, president of American Atheists, a Montgomery-based nonprofit legal advocacy group, learned of the embroidered display from a reporter on Tuesday.

"You've got to be kidding me," Darby said when told. "I think he's making a mockery of his office, the judicial system and the religion clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It's unbelievable and absurd."

Moore issued a statement of support Tuesday.

"The recognition of the God who gave us the Ten Commandments is fundamental to an understanding of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution," Moore said. "I applaud Judge McKathan. It is time for our judiciary to recognize the moral basis of our law."

Moore rose to prominence as Alabama's "Ten Commandments judge" when, as a circuit jurist, he placed a wood plaque of the biblical directives in his Etowah County courtroom. The ACLU sued, saying people who did not share his publicly displayed religious beliefs did not feel they were going to be treated fairly in his courtroom.

McKathan said he is aware there could be court battles over his robe because "there is a potential constitutional issue." He said he does not want a legal fight, but is prepared should one come.

"I see the Ten Commandments as a connection to the truth," he said. "The scriptural truth is the underlying foundation for the law. It has sustained Western civilization for centuries. Without the truth, you can throw the law away."

McKathan said he has been a circuit judge for 13 years, and is a member of Pleasant Home Baptist Church. He said Moore did the right thing in disobeying a federal judge's orders.

"I approved of the placement of the monument in the judiciary building," McKathan said. "It took a lot of courage for Judge Moore to go through all he did. I just hope I will be able to give an articulate defense. I don't want a court battle -- but you know, all that's in the Lord's hands."

Darby said the Atheist Law Center is involved in cases to have Ten Commandments displays removed in Texas and Kentucky. The lawsuits, he said, seek a U.S. Supreme Court ban on any religious display in a courtroom, "or maybe on a person -- in light of this robe."

Though court officials in Covington County said they were shocked to see the robe on Monday, none would agree to be quoted regarding the display.

Richard Cohen, the Southern Poverty Law Center attorney in the civil case to remove Moore's granite monument from the Supreme Court judicial building, said he would be looking into the incident.

"We should always be wary of public officials who wear their religion on their sleeve," Cohen said, "or in this case on their robes."

---

The title of this thread is screwed up.

It says "A friend of mine thinks ExCathedra is hot."

That implies it's a matter of opinion and that it may or may not be true.

It should more accurately read, in the literal translation according to that's-the-fact-Jack,

"A friend of mine acknowledges the undeniable truth that ExCathedra is hot."

You'd better believe it.

Can't see it. Can someone offer a brief description?

I'm trying to remember my history. I found the CES site about the same time I found Waydale, but I think CES had a forum up before Waydale did. I eventually joined both, but was an infrequent poster on Waydale. I was more a CES site junkie (some GREAT stuff on that board). Then, of course, came the fateful day that THE CES board closed down, and I jumped on Waydale to tell everyone. We all know what happen THEn.

After that I was into Waydale. I didn't jump to Greasespot until Waydale closed.

Thanks.

I don't remember the Bayunga uprising being a part of POP. Then, I am grateful to say, I lost my copy of that rag ages ago and have not downloaded a new copy even though it's widely available.

Flat Stanley has arrived in sunny Fort Lauderdale (and it really is sunny, and cool). I took him to "Old Fort Lauderdale," our historic district, this morning. Our historic district consists of about five or six houses built between 1900-1920.

Some history.

Anyway, we're going postcard shopping later and then he's headed for Tampa.

Rick!

Where've you been!?! E-mail me.

If Posh Spice was at the Nativity, I don't think anyone would have called her the VIRGIN Mary.

quote:

---

I think it should be noted, incidentally, that the predictions

of POP, whether from vpw or cg himself, failed to come to pass,

so we know the one source they did NOT come from was GOD.

---

What predictions?

He's 84.

There are nine cast members left. All munchkins.

I don't think I can do that (it's work product, property of my paper).

No, but I do have a tape of him singing the song. :)-->

I'll check my mail as soon as I get home. I haven't gotten it yet, but I haven't checked the mail for a few days (last week of the semester: tres busy).

I love my job.

I just got back from an interview with Jerry Maren.

He's the one in the middle.

quote:

---

Other parts of the teaching on believing = receiving was experiential (the woman who wanted red drapes and the little boy who got hit by the car) or the opinion that people die when they stopped believing.

I think that it is the other way around. People stop believing when they die. Of course, they're dead, they can't believe.

---

:)-->

Or as I've put it: Death is not caused when someone stops believing. It is caused when someone stops breathing.

Dave, and everyone else:

Let's try a completely different approach. Make your cases without referring to Wierwille as a person (you may refer to what he wrote, but not to his motives, behavior, education, etc).

Let's see if the framework of administrations really holds up to scrutiny, with or without Wierwille.

Great start from VL in the post immediately preceding this one.

Dave,

I wouldn't expect you to write about where Crowley was right and where he was wrong, for two reasons. One: he is not the leader of the Baptists. He's a low man on the totem pole, and writing about his accuracy would be like writing about the accuracy of the average "twig" coordinator. Two: Crowley didn't set out to craft a unique subset of believers who would exalt him as the man of God for our time, and use and abuse the Bible in the process. Wierwille did, to devastating effect.

For the past few years it's been my belief that Wierwille did some pretty bad things, and if I am going to value the things I was taught, it has to be independent of that man. I will not defend him, nor will I dismiss the things he taught merely because he taught them. However, if I determine that he was wrong about something, and the available evidence leads me to conclude his reason for being wrong was deliberate and self-serving, then I'm going to say it, and why not? Wierwille was wrong about tithing, and wrong in a way that profitted him greatly. I believe it was deliberate (the guy who taught "to whom addressed" couldn't possibly keep missing the point that "the church" is never given the tithe as a minimum standard). His failure to address adultery in the Christian Family and Sex class was self-serving.

Honest Christians disagree about dispensationalism/administrations. I don't think it's right to accuse people of disagreeing with that doctrine just because they "hate" Wierwille (and if you didn't make that accusation, you sure as sugar implied it).

Let's talk about the thread title: I think you need to know that the subject of dispensationalism has come up on this board a number of times. You should also know (and I'm sure you do) that not all dispensationalists agree on the nature and timing of the dispensations. In fact, Wierwille is, if I am not mistaken, the ONLY one who referred to them as administrations rather than dispensations. It's also odd that he sets the "Christ Administration" as a separate dispensation (others teach that it fell under the law, closing it out).

Point is, Wierwille's particular brand of dispensationalism was unique: whether it's wacky is a statement of opinion, and I think you've read far more into the title of this thread than the substance of the posts that followed.

Interested in your thoughts.