Rocky

Mike, it's NOT about anyone else's mistakes. YOU have made it about you. EVEN IF I were to "castigate" anyone else, it would do nothing. Your response (above in blue or purple, whichever it is) demonstrates that you are STILL resisting the notion that YOU and YOUR words are at issue. Calming down doesn't seem to be helping you read for understanding, be meek, or learn anything. When it’s not a battle, and not overwhelming volume, and I have lots of time, I can do better than what I have done so far. Help me reduce the volume of target shooting and maybe that can happen faster. NO Mike, you've completely missed the point. The "battle" is between YOUR EARS. When YOU reduce the volume of your resistance to listening to what people are trying to say to you, you MIGHT learn something. Only THEN will you "do better." Frankly those two sentences come across like you're trying to guilt me into bullying other GSC posters for you. IF you're genuinely open for more ideas, there's your answer.

That's disappointing Mike. I HAVE repeated, repeatedly, the point about how the communication process works and that when you resort to telling people that they read you wrong, you fail at communicating YOUR message. My intent is to give you graceful a way out of the predicaments you put yourself in. [see Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People, Part Four, chapter Five] One chapter title is "When you're wrong admit it quickly and emphatically." [Part Two, chapter three] IF your intent is to get people to take your message seriously, wouldn't you have to get honest about your communication mistakes and problems? You've recorded your "thesis" on GSC but you've refused all efforts to get you to clarify your points. Are you an expert communicator? Haven't you admitted that you're not? When you refuse legitimate feedback by saying the reader read you wrong, you're missing a wonderful opportunity to LEARN how to communicate better.

Mike, even though you repeatedly do not respond with integrity when caught in prevarication, if your intent were to convince unconvinced readers you lose because they can plainly see (and read) that when you are caught, you try to squirm out of responsibility for your words with variations on: 1) I didn't say that, or 2) blaming those who caught you for not understanding what you intended to say even though they don't pretend to read your mind. You squirm, but don't quite squirm your way out of it. Mike, by definition you're blaming the reader for YOUR failure to communicate. I've shown you the definition several times. Would you like me to again provide a link? At about 2:10 into the video at this link, "the sender needs to make sure the receiver understood the message." "The receiver's reply to the sender is called feedback." "Feedback allows THE SENDER TO ENSURE that the original message was interpreted correctly by the receiver." Bottom line, Mike, when you blame others for "not reading correctly," you're OFF THE BALL. Regardless of whether you ever get back on the ball, the messages you have posted remain on GSC as you posted them. IF you want to clarify, which is your responsibility, blaming the reader for not reading your mind or for not understanding the message as you originally intended it, misses the target.

Now you're rewriting your comment given that you were caught doing something you know you can't legitimately do? NO, you weren't speaking up for God. Had that been your intent, you'd have to say something to the effect of "my understanding of God's word is ________ , and I'm calling your attention to it." That's NOT what you did. Your claimed assumption, as stated above, is specious.

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?