Rocky

According to the definition of communication, you're not taking responsibility for your failure to communicate. Who do you think you are, Jesus Christ? Btw, Wierwille's comments to which you refer, contrary to your claim, do NOT indicate he was getting revelation (from God). Properly characterized, he would have been exercising his training in homiletics to claim (and get gullible listeners to accept) that he was getting revelation from God. But said comments were specifically NOT indications that he was getting any such thing from God, even in the event he may have been getting revelation from God to such an end.

From the link waysider provided: The next section compares Wierwille's 1972 and 1957 editions of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today and Stiles' 1948 edition of The Gift of the Holy Spirit. This shows that Wierwille obviously copied from Stiles' book in 1957, even though editing for later editions changed the wording a little and made the plagiarism a little less obvious.

Wierwille committed plagiarism. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today has passage after passage that is just copying someone else's work. Further, it may not be honest to say as you did in the second paragraph, "... which it is not plagiarism..." You have not made a valid argument that Wierwille is not guilty of plagiarism. I would be less inclined to pick at that expression had you written "... while it may not be plagiarism ..."

Mike should (but may not) give YOU credit for your concise statement of the spiritual reality at issue on this thread.

Please clarify. If Wierwille wanted (and apparently he did want) to look like he had figured it out all on his own, wouldn't that actually BE plagiarism, if he actually didn't figure it out all on his own (from God, without any human help)? And wouldn't that make it evident that he did intend to plagiarize rather than credit his human sources?

I suspect that in my comment above (where I quoted you and highlighted), you are projecting when you said "In the eyes of God what happened is definitely NOT plagiarism." I get this from a composite reading of all of your posts/comments that I've read. You claim to be speaking for God. Isn't that presumptuous of you?

Mike... are you even in the same reality we are? You were not falsely accused. You seem to have recanted, that's not the same thing.

"Most non-religious people think of..." what's your source, Mike? You're defining fundamentalism by how comedian Dana Carvey (the correct spelling of his last name) comically and satirically portrayed a character based on his childhood experience? Or, "as it is known today?" Again, what's your source? Or are you defining fundamentalism by how you think "most non-religious people think of fundamentalists?" Either way, that's completely absurd and actually rebuts itself without me having to argue it further.

I disagree.

Poor Mike. Woe is Mike.

And it (the definition of fundamentalism) makes Wierwille and his subculture also fundamentalist.

Mike, Mike, Mike... I quoted where you called Penworks "dimwitted." That's something an elitist would say. Then, after quoting you, I asked you about your academic credentials. If you want to now not be an elitist, you'd have to take back your namecalling (dimwitted). I assure you, those here who would consider your content (your fundamentalist PFLAP dogma) to have integrity seem to be few and far between.

The first to record it as her/his discovery/work. In your scenario, it would be patented.

Well, that of course is a subjective argument. We can't quantify either one. But Twinky articulated Mike's position well. Probably far better than Mike ever could... at least far more succinctly.

So did I. :)

How very ELITIST of you. What exactly are your academic credentials? Fundamentalism 1. (Ecclesiastical Terms) Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true 2. (Islam) Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law 3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs What is fundamentalism? Fundamentalism is the approach to religion that sees believers embrace an early form of their religion, to consider it beyond criticism and worthy enough to be enforced upon oneself (or others) without having to accommodate modern evidence or logical arguments against it. (continued) Mike, you sir, beside the fact that you are a dogmatist, are a fundamentalist. Except that YOUR fundamentalism is PFLAP flavored.

That apparently was Alexander Pope. In An Essay on Criticism, Part II, in 1711, apparently, Pope explains that, while anyone can make a mistake, we should aspire to do as God does, that is, show mercy and forgive sinners: Note that Pope's original wording uses the word 'humane' rather than, as it is now usually spelled, 'human'. This wasn't a spelling mistake, nor have we misunderstood the poet's meaning, just that 'humane' was the accepted spelling of 'human' in the early 18th century.

First of all, in asking you to explain how either of those two stories demonstrated that twi is NOT a fundamentalist organization, I did not question the stories themselves. IOW, I acknowledge(d) that you cited an excerpt from PFLAP and a well understood citation from the class on "send me at least 10 percent of all of your money." While you may have provided some insight as to how YOU rationalize these things in your mind, you did NOT explain how they relate to what you claim they mean. You just didn't. Ya know, Mike... some people here try to give you the opportunity to actually engage in discussion as you requested. But you now (and in the past) just don't seem to get it, and don't respond to legitimate points people make when they try to respond to you. The India incident in PFLAP does nothing to show Wierwille or twi as not fundamentalist. The incident served instead, in the class and in the book, as Wierwille's attempt to buttress his claim to greatness. IOW, it was only your hero saying, "look at how great I am." That's narcissism. Nothing more, nothing less. The tithing concept from the other class and pamphlet was offered ONLY as alleged evidence that if you faithfully send him money, you'll prosper. Nothing more, nothing less. Is there anything in any Wierwille proclamation where he says that he approves of Hinduism or Mormonism as valid and legitimate ways to God? Didn't Ted Ferrell have a song or two about the only way to God?

Really?

Unrelated concepts. Loy's pension would have no bearing on tax exempt status of the corporation as a whole.

Okay, Mike. Wierwille set forth in the PFLAP book a story (anecdote) about how someone of the Hindu culture and religion praised him. That IS the meaning of the excerpt you quoted, right? Further, the Mormon subculture is built on the diligent practice of tithing. Wierwille used that as (alleged) evidence for the concept he was promoting in his pamphlet on the subject, surreptitiously titled "Christians should be prosperous." The message in the book was more fundamentally, "send me money, at least 10 percent of all of what you get from any source." Please explain how these anecdotes provide evidence that the subculture Wierwille established is "not fundamentalist." Thank you.

Good post, Mike. I appreciate your response. it's too late this evening for me to post a comprehensive reply. But I can tell you that I DO hunger and thirst for righteousness (Proverbs 2:1-5). But I don't find it in the oppressive constraints of fundamentalism, including Wierwille's version thereof. There is so much more to life and more to learn about God and godliness than what is in PFLAP and/or in the Bible.

I have a jack, but I'm not going to help you!