Thank you for your positive approach, challenging as it is. I'm glad to be proven wrong in my negative expectation. :)-->
Is your wish list in order of importance to you? Not only is my time limited this morning, but this whole list may take me the whole winter to touch on.
A few items I've already touched on here, and a few are beyond my abilities at this moment.
Let me try the first one for starters: Who is God?
"In the beginning was the Word..." There's more, but I'm trying to be brief.
"God's Word is as much God as God is God" is another gem. It says that the most important thing to know about God (much like knowing the most important thing about a human being who is knowledgeable and trustworthy) is what He says, thinks, wills, plans, and yearns for.
With human beings and God it's also important to know what they can do.
"And God said let there be light..." In other words, in addition to answering the big questions about God, His Word is also the ultimate power in the physical and spiritual worlds.
The first verse used in "Jesus Christ Is NOT God" is Deuteronomy 29:29. "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."
In other words, God gives us His Word, and in the right proportions and forms.
God's Word is His essence, it's His power, and it's been given to us in written form and in flesh form in His Son Jesus Christ. When we embrace these two forms entirely, then He gives His Word spiritually to us so that we can become like His Son, Jesus Christ.
God's written Word is what He gave to men whom He selected, spiritual revelation, and then guided them in putting it into written form that anyone can read.
This written Word has been given often in the past, and then it's quickly or eventually covered up, camouflaged, and/or destroyed. God just gives it again, though, as is illustrated in Jer.36.
God's incarnate Word is the man, Jesus Christ.
The Word of God in it's spiritual form is the messages given in the cluster of the three revelation manifestations.
There are also counterfeits of God's Word, which makes it difficult to find, but those who seek it first in their life are drawn and guided by God to find it.
If I were to give you a 5-senses definition of spirit, His Spirit, then it would
be "de-finite," or made finite, and thus no longer infinite Spirit. Thus all written definitions of spirit are merely crude approximations.
If you want to know spiritually what spirit is you must first find out from His written word all that you can by your 5-senses, and then when you are able to hear God's voice directly and He sees that you need to know more about that word, then HE will tell you more. You can't bring God down to earth/flesh level, only ascend to His level for some things.
These things require meekness and great desire, and will never be made available for those with mere idle curiosity. You must have a plan of action lined up with God's plans to get deep answers from Him.
This is not simple and flesh-level Geometry where we start out with precise definitions. We work with what He has given us first, and then He gives us more as we need it.
You're not going to get theological proofs from me or PFAL, just the next steps you need in your walk with God.
After mentioning on another thread that I am very sensitive to the wishes of the owner of that new website (somewhat TWI affiliated)regarding my posting habits there on his site, it surprised me that I wasn't immediately pounced on by "the usual suspects" and accused of NOT being sensitive to the wishes of the owner of THIS website.
Why does the fact that you misjudged us surprise you? The rest of us are used to it by now. :)-->
"If I were to give you a 5-senses definition of spirit, His Spirit, then it would
be "de-finite," or made finite, and thus no longer infinite Spirit. Thus all written definitions of spirit are merely crude approximations. "
Here I agree with you 100%. Though at times it is necessary to "de-finite" the infinite spirit in order to understand an aspect/part. However, it is important to understand that is all we are seeing, a part and not the whole.
"If you want to know spiritually what spirit is you must first find out from His written word all that you can by your 5-senses, and then when you are able to hear God's voice directly and He sees that you need to know more about that word, then HE will tell you more."
While I agree it is important to spend time searching out, via the five senses, the things of God, I think we have here a chicken or the egg senario. Without guidance from God how would one even know where to begin in searching Him out? Take someone else's word for it? Why? Based simply one someone else's word/testimonial? Based on the culture I was raused in? Why would I chose the Bible over the Koran over the Torah, over . . . . ?
Don't take anyone's word for it. You will know it when you see it. According to mike everything vp says (within his context)is true. Well I could say the same thing!
Everything I say is true.
See-I said it-but that don't mean it is.
You are right. Without God's guidance we are lost with the scriptures or anything anyone else says that God has said.
Trust your common sense. Your God given right to think. The Word of Life is there. Well protected from fools, abusers and those who do not have heart.
I was going to try and save this for a separate thread, but recently two posts caught my eye and I want to respond while they are fresh, plus one post from last October also fits in well
Oakspear wrote (with my bold fonts) on this thread above:
"The claims of plagarism are not spurious, they are real. The importance of Wierwille's plagarism is arguable, it's existance is not."
I agree, somewhat.
I've often said here before that Dr was NOT participating in the marketplace of bookselling, nor in the academic arena, where plagiarism and copyright infringement ARE important things to consider.
Dr was engaging in the area of God's family, where we recognize that God is the owner and originator of all good and new ideas. In this family of God it's NOT important that credit and money receiving get top focus. In God's family it's GIVING that should be at the top priority slot.
Kenyon GAVE. Bullinger GAVE. Styles GAVE. Leonard GAVE. They gave to God and His family. Dr merely rearranged where some think he stole. Dr GAVE too. He gave to us. He gave us LOTS of valuable things that he collected from the others.
If Dr had been engaged in the competitive marketplace, then he might have had a little trouble with the charges. Actually, these charges still would be pretty minimized, seeing that his actions PROMOTED sales of the others' books, as Dr gave them lots free advertising by frequently mentioning them.
If Dr had been engaged in the arena of academia, where students compete with other students for grades, where professors compete with other professors for jobs, and where universities compete with other universities for reputations, THEN what Dr did would have landed him in a LOT of trouble for cheating, and that's VERY important to those engaged in that particular arena.
Dr did often give credit where credit is due, but most of his critics here forget that, or deliberately overlook it, or fly off in some anal retentive insistence that the credits were not in the proper format or location.
***
Interestingly enough, Raf "somewhat" agreed with part of my analysis just yesterday on the "grifters" thread. There he wrote:
"Oh, and I think he knew about the plagiarism but, except possibly for the Leonard material, didn't think it was a big deal: Bullinger was dead, after all. Plus, he probably was not thinking of his books as "scholarship" so much as tracts."
Here he uses the word "tracts" to indicate what I would call family. I realize even my use of scare quotes still stretches my reference to Raf agreeing with me, but at least he does indicate the separation of the academic arena from where Dr was operating.
***
Last October 14th Biblefan Dave posted in the "Pearly Gates" thread in the Doctrinal forum a piece much more in sync with my position with this:
"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.
"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. Simply using someone else's material is not wrong, selling it without citing sources is not wrong.
"As long as a book is in the public domain, it is never wrong to use material written in that book. 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.
"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.
"That is legal plagiarism. 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. 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."
***
Thanks Biblefan Dave! :)-->
In areas where receiving credit and money is the MOST important thing, like in academia and in the open marketplace, then the procedures that Dr used would be labeled plagiarism and copyright infringement.
In the MUCH more important area of God's family where GIVING is paramount then he gave well. God is the owner and He gives out the rewards with perfect precision.
Which area are we going to station ourselves? I choose God's family.
I'd like to set the record straight with you. We have some unfinished business to take care of.
First of all, and most important to me, I want to apologize for loosing my temper with you near the end of last year. In the month following that I was semi-banned I had a lot of time to think through what I said and did. I could have just let it go, what you said that ticked me off, and things would have settled down just fine, I'm sure.
***
Second in importance to me, is I want to thank you for your "clay" remark. Oddly, I only have the vaguest memory of your previous reference use of that word in reference to me.
As I was still thinking through my temper tantrum when you recently brought that up, it became obvious that I was operating a selective memory in my appraisal of you and your position... something I loathe when I see it in others here regarding the forgetfulness towards all the vast good that Dr did do for us all.
Anyway, thanks for that comment (twice), and it also got me thinking about my own selective memory.
That said, I must mention that I have coarse clay in other areas of my life that I must plead guilty to. The precise scenario you mentioned never came up, but a few VERY similar ones (involving different people) did come up a few times, and your prediction was accurate. But in other departments of my life I was a miserable failure to temptation.
HCW's recent post about his father's ability to maintain dignity and integrity in one department while failing miserably in another is VERY telling. It was (and is) the case for me, and it was the case for Dr (which HCW was implying), and it's the case for us all.
***
Another item: I think you took that beating (only somewhat deserved) well from HCW. I had been thinking through the items above when that happened and I felt for you.
***
THAT said, may I now ask a favor of you, old pal, old buddy, old friend? :D-->
In your review of me and my position on that mirror thread, why not do a word search on my posts for the past two years on: plagiarism (and it's misspelled form), copyright, academia, academic, market, marketplace, original, idea, and other such permutations of these items?
You could establish a greater reputation for objectivity (even greater than your twice mentioning of "clay") by dredging all those things up, and save me a lot of time.
And, of course, any other interested readers can do the same.
quote:Here he uses the word "tracts" to indicate what I would call family. I realize even my use of scare quotes still stretches my reference to Raf agreeing with me, but at least he does indicate the separation of the academic arena from where Dr was operating.
I have no idea what that means. But let me, in the spirit of helpfulness, clarify a few things:
I have always said the same thing Oakspear said, although he said it in fewer words (and more clearly).
I have no problem with your overall analysis above, except for the ludicrous assertion that others benefitted from Wierwille's plagiarism. It's tantamount to excusing a rape because the victim ended up having a beautiful baby - not nearly as serious, but the analogy holds. Wrong is wrong, no matter what right comes of it.
Enough about that.
I've often said that the existence of plagiarism in a published work does not in any way affect the validity of the content. It is only an issue if your discussing the character of the writer. In my estimation, the value of the plagiarism debate rests solely on the discussion of whether the plagiarism took place. Of this, there is simply no debate. The plagiarism took place. That you see the plagiarism as service, where I see it as patent dishonesty on the part of the writer, says nothing of the validity of the content. I have never dismissed anything Wierwille wrote simply because it was plagiarized.
Our key difference on this subject is that where you see the hand of God directing Wierwille to "His" Word, I see irrefutable proof that Wierwille's work is not "The Word of God." It's a point of disagreement you and I will not resolve, so spare me the counterpoint (but feel free to discuss it with others).
This is what I wrote in my forum this week:
quote:I do not think Wierwille's books should be dismissed as near photocopies of the works of others.
Every writer relies on others. Wierwille too frequently crossed the line into plagiarism, something I think showed a lack of integrity on his part. But along with the plagiarism there was plenty of his own insight and perspective. The issue for me is not whether he plagiarized - he did. The issue for me is what importance do I place on that fact. Personally, the only time I care that Wierwille plagiarized is when assessing whether or not Wierwille plagiarized.
Anyway, this is supposed to be a pro-PFAL thread, and I will respect that.
In my opinion, those who read PFAL without guile or pretense will walk away with a greater appreciation of The Bible, even if they don't accept every tenet or claim of PFAL.
Paw,
Please understand that just as Wierwille's claim that PFAL is not God breathed is interpreted by Mike to mean that PFAL is God breathed, your insistence that you were not joking is utterly irrelevant. Night is day, black is white, liberal is conservative and you were joking. Mike said so. Get with the program.
When you say it's wrong you are speaking from within your profession, which is like a mix of marketplace and academia. I can see how you think that way, but if you step outside of that arena in which you live and make your living, and look at it from inside God's family, can't you THEN see it as totally innocent like I do? I'm asking for a total shift in your viewing perspective, which you seem to be resisting.
Your other item is well put: our major point of contention is the God-breathed status of the books.
I find that whenever that point is discussed, however, as soon as I make some good points, posters from all over jump in and change the subject.
The two major distracting agents they use, derailing the God-breathed discussion, are the plagiarism and sex issues.
No, Mike, when I say it's wrong what I mean is, it's wrong. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of integrity, your excuses notwithstanding. In the post of mine that you quoted, I said Wierwille probably didn't care. I didn't say he was right not to care. Integrity is integrity: I don't care what field you're in. You don't turn it off for the church. If anything, you turn it ON for the church. It was NOT innocent.
quote:I find that whenever that point is discussed, however, as soon as I make some good points, posters from all over jump in and change the subject.
The two major distracting agents they use, derailing the God-breathed discussion, are the plagiarism and sex issues.
As I said, the plagiarism is, for some of us, irrefutable proof that his work is not God-breathed. For us, this is not a distraction, but evidence against your position. You may disagree and call it what you want, but it is NOT a distraction in any sense of the word.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
29
23
17
106
Popular Days
Jan 20
29
Feb 23
26
Jan 21
25
Jan 22
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 29 posts
def59 23 posts
Oakspear 17 posts
Mike 106 posts
Popular Days
Jan 20 2005
29 posts
Feb 23 2005
26 posts
Jan 21 2005
25 posts
Jan 22 2005
23 posts
def59
Ok Mike
let's keep it positive.
Let's see how PFAL can deal with the core beliefs of the faith.
According to PFAL,
Who is God?
Who is Jesus?
Who is the Holy Spirit.
Why is there evil in the world?
Why is there suffering?
Explain the virgin birth.
How do we know PFAL is Truth?
What does PFAL say about marriage?
Families?
Death?
Divorce?
Abuse?
Sin?
Salvation?
Healing?
Tithing?
Evangelism?
Explain apparent contradictions?
for starters
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
Thank you for your positive approach, challenging as it is. I'm glad to be proven wrong in my negative expectation.
:)-->
Is your wish list in order of importance to you? Not only is my time limited this morning, but this whole list may take me the whole winter to touch on.
A few items I've already touched on here, and a few are beyond my abilities at this moment.
Let me try the first one for starters: Who is God?
"In the beginning was the Word..." There's more, but I'm trying to be brief.
"God's Word is as much God as God is God" is another gem. It says that the most important thing to know about God (much like knowing the most important thing about a human being who is knowledgeable and trustworthy) is what He says, thinks, wills, plans, and yearns for.
With human beings and God it's also important to know what they can do.
"And God said let there be light..." In other words, in addition to answering the big questions about God, His Word is also the ultimate power in the physical and spiritual worlds.
The first verse used in "Jesus Christ Is NOT God" is Deuteronomy 29:29. "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."
In other words, God gives us His Word, and in the right proportions and forms.
God's Word is His essence, it's His power, and it's been given to us in written form and in flesh form in His Son Jesus Christ. When we embrace these two forms entirely, then He gives His Word spiritually to us so that we can become like His Son, Jesus Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Ok Mike, I understand you were trying to be brief and left much out
:)-->.
Define for me please, what God's Word is (and please don't simply answer by saying God, because that is circular).
Additionally, the Bible says God is spirit, how does/where does that fit into your definition?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
God's written Word is what He gave to men whom He selected, spiritual revelation, and then guided them in putting it into written form that anyone can read.
This written Word has been given often in the past, and then it's quickly or eventually covered up, camouflaged, and/or destroyed. God just gives it again, though, as is illustrated in Jer.36.
God's incarnate Word is the man, Jesus Christ.
The Word of God in it's spiritual form is the messages given in the cluster of the three revelation manifestations.
There are also counterfeits of God's Word, which makes it difficult to find, but those who seek it first in their life are drawn and guided by God to find it.
If I were to give you a 5-senses definition of spirit, His Spirit, then it would
be "de-finite," or made finite, and thus no longer infinite Spirit. Thus all written definitions of spirit are merely crude approximations.
If you want to know spiritually what spirit is you must first find out from His written word all that you can by your 5-senses, and then when you are able to hear God's voice directly and He sees that you need to know more about that word, then HE will tell you more. You can't bring God down to earth/flesh level, only ascend to His level for some things.
These things require meekness and great desire, and will never be made available for those with mere idle curiosity. You must have a plan of action lined up with God's plans to get deep answers from Him.
This is not simple and flesh-level Geometry where we start out with precise definitions. We work with what He has given us first, and then He gives us more as we need it.
You're not going to get theological proofs from me or PFAL, just the next steps you need in your walk with God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Why does the fact that you misjudged us surprise you? The rest of us are used to it by now.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"If I were to give you a 5-senses definition of spirit, His Spirit, then it would
be "de-finite," or made finite, and thus no longer infinite Spirit. Thus all written definitions of spirit are merely crude approximations. "
Here I agree with you 100%. Though at times it is necessary to "de-finite" the infinite spirit in order to understand an aspect/part. However, it is important to understand that is all we are seeing, a part and not the whole.
"If you want to know spiritually what spirit is you must first find out from His written word all that you can by your 5-senses, and then when you are able to hear God's voice directly and He sees that you need to know more about that word, then HE will tell you more."
While I agree it is important to spend time searching out, via the five senses, the things of God, I think we have here a chicken or the egg senario. Without guidance from God how would one even know where to begin in searching Him out? Take someone else's word for it? Why? Based simply one someone else's word/testimonial? Based on the culture I was raused in? Why would I chose the Bible over the Koran over the Torah, over . . . . ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Abigail
Don't take anyone's word for it. You will know it when you see it. According to mike everything vp says (within his context)is true. Well I could say the same thing!
Everything I say is true.
See-I said it-but that don't mean it is.
You are right. Without God's guidance we are lost with the scriptures or anything anyone else says that God has said.
Trust your common sense. Your God given right to think. The Word of Life is there. Well protected from fools, abusers and those who do not have heart.
vert
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Oh believe me Vert, a lesson I have learned very well is to trust myself and my relationship with God.
I am simply having a conversation with Mike. We haven't talked much in quite a while.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Mike
As always, I am glad to be reading your posts and doubly glad this time to be reading your own thread.
:-)
"Righteousness is your God-given ability to stand in the Father’s presence without a sense of sin, guilt or condemnation."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
The claims of plagarism are not spurious, they are real. The importance of Wierwille's plagarism is arguable, it's existance is not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I wish I had the time I needed to respond to all right now.
:(-->
.
.
.
I'm sooooo tired.
.
.
.
Just paid my self-unemployment taxes yesterday...
-->
.
.
.
Need to do some overtime to make ends meet in this extra rainy year.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ahh! My Irish roots beckon me!
.
.
.
TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY!
.
.
.
(cue the orchestra)
.
.
.
(zoom out)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
................................maybe I could sell tickets!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
You seem to have all the time to make excuses for why you don't have the time to respond.
We are all busy, so don't sweat it if you can't respond promptly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I do have time for a few quick ones.
:)-->
I was going to try and save this for a separate thread, but recently two posts caught my eye and I want to respond while they are fresh, plus one post from last October also fits in well
Oakspear wrote (with my bold fonts) on this thread above:
"The claims of plagarism are not spurious, they are real. The importance of Wierwille's plagarism is arguable, it's existance is not."
I agree, somewhat.
I've often said here before that Dr was NOT participating in the marketplace of bookselling, nor in the academic arena, where plagiarism and copyright infringement ARE important things to consider.
Dr was engaging in the area of God's family, where we recognize that God is the owner and originator of all good and new ideas. In this family of God it's NOT important that credit and money receiving get top focus. In God's family it's GIVING that should be at the top priority slot.
Kenyon GAVE. Bullinger GAVE. Styles GAVE. Leonard GAVE. They gave to God and His family. Dr merely rearranged where some think he stole. Dr GAVE too. He gave to us. He gave us LOTS of valuable things that he collected from the others.
If Dr had been engaged in the competitive marketplace, then he might have had a little trouble with the charges. Actually, these charges still would be pretty minimized, seeing that his actions PROMOTED sales of the others' books, as Dr gave them lots free advertising by frequently mentioning them.
If Dr had been engaged in the arena of academia, where students compete with other students for grades, where professors compete with other professors for jobs, and where universities compete with other universities for reputations, THEN what Dr did would have landed him in a LOT of trouble for cheating, and that's VERY important to those engaged in that particular arena.
Dr did often give credit where credit is due, but most of his critics here forget that, or deliberately overlook it, or fly off in some anal retentive insistence that the credits were not in the proper format or location.
***
Interestingly enough, Raf "somewhat" agreed with part of my analysis just yesterday on the "grifters" thread. There he wrote:
"Oh, and I think he knew about the plagiarism but, except possibly for the Leonard material, didn't think it was a big deal: Bullinger was dead, after all. Plus, he probably was not thinking of his books as "scholarship" so much as tracts."
Here he uses the word "tracts" to indicate what I would call family. I realize even my use of scare quotes still stretches my reference to Raf agreeing with me, but at least he does indicate the separation of the academic arena from where Dr was operating.
***
Last October 14th Biblefan Dave posted in the "Pearly Gates" thread in the Doctrinal forum a piece much more in sync with my position with this:
"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.
"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. Simply using someone else's material is not wrong, selling it without citing sources is not wrong.
"As long as a book is in the public domain, it is never wrong to use material written in that book. 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.
"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.
"That is legal plagiarism. 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. 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."
***
Thanks Biblefan Dave!
:)-->
In areas where receiving credit and money is the MOST important thing, like in academia and in the open marketplace, then the procedures that Dr used would be labeled plagiarism and copyright infringement.
In the MUCH more important area of God's family where GIVING is paramount then he gave well. God is the owner and He gives out the rewards with perfect precision.
Which area are we going to station ourselves? I choose God's family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oops!
:D-->
I guess that wasn't so quick after all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
I'd like to set the record straight with you. We have some unfinished business to take care of.
First of all, and most important to me, I want to apologize for loosing my temper with you near the end of last year. In the month following that I was semi-banned I had a lot of time to think through what I said and did. I could have just let it go, what you said that ticked me off, and things would have settled down just fine, I'm sure.
***
Second in importance to me, is I want to thank you for your "clay" remark. Oddly, I only have the vaguest memory of your previous reference use of that word in reference to me.
As I was still thinking through my temper tantrum when you recently brought that up, it became obvious that I was operating a selective memory in my appraisal of you and your position... something I loathe when I see it in others here regarding the forgetfulness towards all the vast good that Dr did do for us all.
Anyway, thanks for that comment (twice), and it also got me thinking about my own selective memory.
That said, I must mention that I have coarse clay in other areas of my life that I must plead guilty to. The precise scenario you mentioned never came up, but a few VERY similar ones (involving different people) did come up a few times, and your prediction was accurate. But in other departments of my life I was a miserable failure to temptation.
HCW's recent post about his father's ability to maintain dignity and integrity in one department while failing miserably in another is VERY telling. It was (and is) the case for me, and it was the case for Dr (which HCW was implying), and it's the case for us all.
***
Another item: I think you took that beating (only somewhat deserved) well from HCW. I had been thinking through the items above when that happened and I felt for you.
***
THAT said, may I now ask a favor of you, old pal, old buddy, old friend?
:D-->
In your review of me and my position on that mirror thread, why not do a word search on my posts for the past two years on: plagiarism (and it's misspelled form), copyright, academia, academic, market, marketplace, original, idea, and other such permutations of these items?
You could establish a greater reputation for objectivity (even greater than your twice mentioning of "clay") by dredging all those things up, and save me a lot of time.
And, of course, any other interested readers can do the same.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
I wasn't joking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I said it was a hint hidden INSIDE a joke.
I got the hint, and treated it as serious.
It was a good joke too.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
IF I wasn't joking, there could not be a hint inside a joke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I have no idea what that means. But let me, in the spirit of helpfulness, clarify a few things:
I have always said the same thing Oakspear said, although he said it in fewer words (and more clearly).
I have no problem with your overall analysis above, except for the ludicrous assertion that others benefitted from Wierwille's plagiarism. It's tantamount to excusing a rape because the victim ended up having a beautiful baby - not nearly as serious, but the analogy holds. Wrong is wrong, no matter what right comes of it.
Enough about that.
I've often said that the existence of plagiarism in a published work does not in any way affect the validity of the content. It is only an issue if your discussing the character of the writer. In my estimation, the value of the plagiarism debate rests solely on the discussion of whether the plagiarism took place. Of this, there is simply no debate. The plagiarism took place. That you see the plagiarism as service, where I see it as patent dishonesty on the part of the writer, says nothing of the validity of the content. I have never dismissed anything Wierwille wrote simply because it was plagiarized.
Our key difference on this subject is that where you see the hand of God directing Wierwille to "His" Word, I see irrefutable proof that Wierwille's work is not "The Word of God." It's a point of disagreement you and I will not resolve, so spare me the counterpoint (but feel free to discuss it with others).
This is what I wrote in my forum this week:
Anyway, this is supposed to be a pro-PFAL thread, and I will respect that.
In my opinion, those who read PFAL without guile or pretense will walk away with a greater appreciation of The Bible, even if they don't accept every tenet or claim of PFAL.
Paw,
Please understand that just as Wierwille's claim that PFAL is not God breathed is interpreted by Mike to mean that PFAL is God breathed, your insistence that you were not joking is utterly irrelevant. Night is day, black is white, liberal is conservative and you were joking. Mike said so. Get with the program.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Paw,
Ok, I give up. But Mr Hammeroni thought it was funny too.
Can I talk you into increasing the number of posters you'd trade me for?
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
When you say it's wrong you are speaking from within your profession, which is like a mix of marketplace and academia. I can see how you think that way, but if you step outside of that arena in which you live and make your living, and look at it from inside God's family, can't you THEN see it as totally innocent like I do? I'm asking for a total shift in your viewing perspective, which you seem to be resisting.
Your other item is well put: our major point of contention is the God-breathed status of the books.
I find that whenever that point is discussed, however, as soon as I make some good points, posters from all over jump in and change the subject.
The two major distracting agents they use, derailing the God-breathed discussion, are the plagiarism and sex issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, Mike, when I say it's wrong what I mean is, it's wrong. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of integrity, your excuses notwithstanding. In the post of mine that you quoted, I said Wierwille probably didn't care. I didn't say he was right not to care. Integrity is integrity: I don't care what field you're in. You don't turn it off for the church. If anything, you turn it ON for the church. It was NOT innocent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As I said, the plagiarism is, for some of us, irrefutable proof that his work is not God-breathed. For us, this is not a distraction, but evidence against your position. You may disagree and call it what you want, but it is NOT a distraction in any sense of the word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
He did cite his sources, and often.
He did not do it in the format demanded in areas outside the church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.