Raf

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?

I would echo what Zix said, if I could understand it. :)--> Dave, if you looked at superoxygenated water with half of the critical eye and skepticism you applied to the book of James, you would recognize it for the pure bunk that it is. I don't know what you're talking about in terms of "naysayers" and the "Church of Reason." It seems to me the only people who are actually documenting the value of the product you're promoting are the people selling it. Anyone who looks at this product with an objective eye is walking away with the exact same opinion: it's bunk.

Mr. Hammeroni and Eagle are identical twins.

Well, if you accept, I may have to consult my therapist.

Oh, one more thing: in the spirit of keeping things positive... Mike, you are welcome to post on my site. I don't think I have enough posters to trade with Paw, but maybe he and I can work out an under the table deal (secretly editing your posts when you're not looking, stuff like that).

Get the last word on this, Mike: I've made my point and don't want to further derail a thread that's supposed to be positive in nature.

Mike, It's clear to me that you haven't the slightest idea what it means to cite sources. We are speaking different langauges. I don't have the time or the patience to educate you on what it means to "cite sources." But I'll give you a small taste of it: Lifting passages wholesale from Stiles and then later saying he read and/or learned from Stiles is not citing sources. In any format. You're making excuses for it, which is your prerogative, but you bastardize the meaning of "citing sources" when you claim Wierwille did this often. He did no such thing.

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.

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.

HCW, I left you a PT yesterday. Don't know if you've had a chance to see it.

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.

Someone put a pineapple on it?

He was DEFINITELY sent.

I'd put this in silly, but... 1. There's something in the back of my fridge that's been there since I moved to Florida from the Bronx. 2. I've got toe jam with the consistency of Jif. 3. Roses really don't smell like poo-poo. 4. It takes exactly 4.7 beers to get me to walk funny. 5. I really want to know what the hell is in the back of my fridge. 6. Mike and I are the same person. You've all been Punk'd! 7. I've never been offered an illegal drug. 8. No one wants to tell me that I can't sing, so they save their criticisms for after my fifth beer. 9. I've never been up for a Pulitzer, but I'm not bitter. Dammit. 10. What the @#$%^&^*! is that in my fridge?!?!?!

Now he's got some other stuff he's trying to peddle on other suckers. Sorry Mike, but you gave me a clear opening.

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.

Aw now COME ON!