Raf

This could be fun... Some folks were playing this on another message board (not mine) and apparently having a blast. Here's how it works. I name an actor or actress in a movie. Then I name the movie. Then I name ANOTHER actor or actress in that same movie. Theatrical movies only: no TV movies please. This rule added after p.12 The next poster has to name another movie that the second actor was in, another actor in THAT movie, and then another movie the actor was in. No cheating: rely on your memory. Please put your entries in bold so we can see them... It's easier than it sounds. I'll do the first two rounds, so you see the pattern. You pick it up from there: Michael Keaton Batman Returns Michelle Pfeiffer Tequila Sunrise Raul Julia Presumed Innocent Next round...

Appreciate the assist.

The only piece of advice from Mike you can take to the bank.

I know what you meant, Mike. Here's the thing: where Bullinger disagrees with Wierwille, I go to the Bible to determine who's right. The tattered remnants you so belittle, remember? Why? Because both Bullinger and Wierwille recognize the Bible as authoritative over their own works, whereas you don't. Yeah, I know all your comebacks. Save them for someone who gives a flying fig.

VPW is not God. Nor were his works authored by God. Stop using circular reasoning.

Interpretational. Who's to say either was right?

I just love the white stuff. I like to take my shoes off and wiggle my toes, or just lie back and enjoy it... We are talking about sand, aren't we?

Liar, again. My whole approach insists that if it is true it will follow its own proofs that it is what you claim it to be. SINCE it does not, I reject your thesis. If you were honest, you would too. But something happened in your head that led you away from God to worshipping the brass serpent. It's a crying shame. You're missing out on so much by focusing on a broken cistern. Keep drinking your formula. Someday you'll grow up.

You and God have one thing in common, then. And that, sir, makes you... Oh forget it already.

Your postulate has been demonstrated false so many times it's not even funny. Your refusal to admit it just makes this frustrating or amusing, depending on my mood during a particular day. MY ego? You've got to be kidding.

SINCE it is not God-breathed, then you are in a pickle. Wierwille was a liar (on this point), and you are a sycophantic apologist without the personal integrity to see it.

More straw man nonsense. No matter how many times we say plagiarism doesn't affect the content, Mike comes back with this mischaracterization. So, you think it's anal retentive to insist on citations? Tough noogies. Your idol was the "Dr." with the "PhD" who started a "research" ministry.

:)-->

Steve! Did the postcard arrive? I swear they were both mailed weeks ago.

Well said, Frankee. I believe you speak for more people than you realize.

It's a question of integrity, WTH. You see, if Wierwille's work was God-breathed, then stealing from the not-God-breathed works of men would be unnecessary. You and Mike are dancing with the devil on any front possible to deny that what Wierwille did was plagiarism, or stealing, and that is your right. But to those of us who care about integrity, Wierwille's plagiarism is proof positive that the work is not of the God-breathed nature that Mike claims. Doesn't mean the content is to be discarded or dismissed, but it reveals PFAL as the work of man, not the Word of God. In a similar vein, the existence of actual errors proves not that PFAL is a worthless piece of junk (I've never said that) but only that it's not God-breathed (according to PFAL's own standard of the characteristics of the God-breathed Word). There is a valid question of "so what" associated with the plagiarism charge. If you don't care about the man, only about that which is taught, the fact of Wierwille's plagiarism need not bother you (just as the fact of plagiarism in the novel Roots doesn't take away from the fact that it's a well-told tale). What I find amusing is the lengths to which people will go to deny that plagiarism is, in truth, what has taken place here. You could just as easily say "I don't care" and there would be nothing left to argue about, imo.

He has. He makes up his own rules, and then challenges us to prove him wrong by his own rules. When we can't (in this case, because he set an impossible standard to meet) he claims victory. When we can, he dodges, distracts...

You simply refuse to adopt my fundamental perspective? Integrity? Honesty? Truthfulness. You refuse to adopt these things? About time you admit it. I find it amazing that you guys would have a lower standard for integrity in the church than in the world.

Huh? What kind of non-answer is that? Oh, of course, I almost forgot. How did it go again? Dodge, distract...

Fairly put. If I may rephrase: You want us to establish where in YOUR MIND it was wrong for Wierwille to plagiarize. Since you would justify his plagiarism no matter what form it took, and no matter what evidence was produced to prove it, and you expand the definition of "citing sources" under some ridiculous umbrella of an "in God's family" standard, No amount of logic and clear thinking will convince you that he showed a galling lack of integrity in producing his (not God's) published works.

In other words, you want us to establish where in YOUR MIND plagiarism is forbidden. Sorry, can't do that.

Actually, Mike, I believe it's you who have missed something: If Wierwille did indeed obtain his BD in 1940 and his masters in 1941, then the story he told in your post is, at best, misleading, and at worst, a flat out lie. You seemed to gloss over that part.

I've ARGUED the position you hold. Please don't insult us by suggesting we're unfamiliar with it.

He did ask for it... Pulpit Plagiarism Resigned after preaching a sermon that was not his own! Busted, busted, can't be trusted... I hand it to you, Mike. You're a terrific apologist for the blatant dishonesty that was, unfortunately, one of the marks of Wierwille's ministry. "In God's family..." What a joke.

Joke or no?