Leaderboard

"ziarnko" appears to mean grain, or penny, or small measure. Which I find ironic at the moment.

I remember VPW talking about Gunnison being a place for celebrities to hang out and how he was going to have a restaurant built that went over the water where you could see the river through a glass floor. Really I recall he said that.

Hello. Your phrasing is somewhat awkward-unclear- here, so I will do my best to address what I THINK are your concerns. "I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine??????" Sorry, I can't tell what you mean. Are you asking the profit in the doctrine of twi, or why discuss it, or something else? "as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ..." Results vary depending on the churches local to you. And they're known as churches, generally, sometimes with a different name like "assemblies", but "church" is the name in common English, and that's what they're called. I've seen local churches that didn't seem particularly useful, and ones where lives where changed for the better-and that's only counting Roman Catholic Churches I've attended. In twi, I saw lives changed-generally for the worse if they stayed in twi for a decade or more. ".I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching" You might want to read up on what plagiarism is, what it isn't, and why it's a big deal. Only twi'ers and some ex-twi'ers seem to soft-pedal it, and only when discussing vpw- he's the only one excused for rampant plagiarism, and anyone plagiarizing HIM has no excuse. To answer your question directly, what you do specifically and how you do it makes a big difference. I once studied something, and came to a conclusion. When I checked, Bullinger made the same point, and improved on my work. If I had gone forward and presented Bullinger's work and claimed it was mine, it would have been plagiarism. If I had taught it and cited Bullinger, I would have done the right thing- which I did, and it only took a second to mention his name out of an entire teaching. If the sources you used didn't go in the direction you went nor made any of the same direct points, then there was no need to mention them if doing a teaching-but they should have been cited if you typed it out for reading. Of course, you could have cited them anyway, and that would have harmed nobody. If you read several sources and stitched the teaching together from their collective points, then citing them is the thing to do. (I did that once with 2 different things that, together, were more than either of my sources were by themselves.) Simply put, if you use someone else's work, you cite the source. That's morally correct (you're not claiming it's your work when it isn't) and it's legally correct (plagiarism is a crime, and it becomes a felony once $1001 US is involved, but it's a crime even if $0 US is involved.) Whether or not you're smart doesn't affect whether or not it's plagiarism if you don't cite your sources (it's plagiarism no matter how smart you are or are not. ) "..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll .." You really should make the effort to read what plagiarism is and is not, and understand it. Philip wasn't rehashing, say, Andrew's teaching on the same thing, he was teaching from his own understanding. ".nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4..." These glib references don't sound like you actually want to know where you're mistaken, Jesus actually CITED HIS SOURCES ALL THREE TIMES in Matthew 4. Each time, he made it clear he was quoting the Bible and not just speaking for himself. "also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone." Sounds like you're EAGER to accuse us of something. You don't sound "hesitant" at all. And Jesus gave that ruling about the stone one time, about a specific incident, where a woman was caught in the act of adultery (caught in the act, but the guy wasn't dragged out, just her. Obviously this wasn't about justice...) and those trying to get Jesus in trouble wanted her killed for adultery or Jesus caught contradicting Scripture (even though there were mitigations available, a canny spin-doctor could make it sound like Jesus was being unjust.) Jesus didn't invalidate the law, and Jesus didn't claim she didn't sin (he told her to STOP sinning), This was obviously never meant as a blanket "cover" for time someone was caught sinning. Jesus forgave THE REPENTANT often, but they actually repented. vpw went to his grave asserting he never did anything God Almighty would disapprove. (God Almighty disapproves of lies, rapes, molestations, and other things vpw did.) " How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now... " There's a common hypocrisy among vpw apologists. In one breath, they will condemn all sorts of things people from churches had done long before vpw was born, but give vpw a pass saying that it's in the past. If I were you, I'd consider whether that's what I was doing. As for vpw's evil works, some of them are still hurting people. So, people need to be warned before they're hurt. Other people are helped in their healing when they discover what they did NOT know about vpw's evil works.