Raf

John, That's just not true. With most of the cases we've debated here, government is NOT trying to tell you that you can't worship God. People are trying to tell GOVERNMENT that GOVERNMENT can't worship God. Don't you see the difference? The moment our government decides who God is, it can tell you who God isn't, and that's NOT government's role. I don't want government telling me I have to accept the trinity to be a true Christian. I don't want government telling me that I can deny the trinity and still be a true Christian. I don't want government in the equation, period. Has the government ever gone into your home and told you to take down the Ten Commandments from your wall? (You DO have the Ten Commandments on your wall at home, don't you?) Has any liberal told you that you cannot listen to a teaching tape in your car, or put a "picture" of Christ up in your home? No. And it won't happen. You want a middle ground? Here's a middle ground. Put the Ten Commandments up in your home. Carry a Bible with you. Preach. Teach. Love. Go to church. Put a Ten Commandments monument up outside your church building, on church property. Why does government have to do any of those things? Perhaps Zix or someone else with formal logic training can chime in, but there's a serious flaw in your reasoning. Government has no more right to tell you which God NOT to worship than it has to tell you which God TO worship. You want a middle ground? There it is: I won't compel government to tell you which God NOT to worship if you don't compel government to tell me which God TO worship. Do we have a deal?

Actually, since "an" is indefinite, whereas "the" is definite, I would think that would only serve to detract from Johniam's position, since "an" establishment of religion is for more flexible than "the" establishment of religion. The bottom line is this: Government does not get to tell me who my God is what his name is or whether I can erect a statue to another God. Please don't make me do this letter by letter.

I should have been a little more clear, although I appreciate the entries so far... I'm trying to come up with movies you suspect others here have not seen. I might want to rent some of these based on your recommendations (the only ones I've seen, beginning to end, are Stand By Me, Amadeus and It's a Wonderful Life).

I disagree with you on that, but we've been through that many times before. That would be prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Merry Christmas.

Simply not true. Wierwille plagiarized Kenyon, Stiles, Leonard and Bullinger. I'm trying to remember if there are any other accusations, but none come to mind. If he plagiarized anyone else on his list of people he "learned" from, I'm unaware of it. After all, who has any of Glenn Clark's books? I agree with you that there were numerous citations given in JCING, plus an extensive bibliography, which would by itself negate most charges of plagiarism.

Too true.

I suspect that denying a polling place because it is a church would be as much a violation of the First Amendment as requiring that polling places be at churches. Recall that the First Amendment does not say "separation of church and state," so using that phrase to frame the law doesn't always work (although it sometimes does). The amendment is that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If a church building meets all the legal requirements of a polling place, then it cannot be denied simply because it is a church. (I don't know how polling places are selected, so please don't ask).

Reminds me of something I said a couple of years ago: we spent more time discerning the number of crosses on the side than the significance of the cross in the middle.

According to my avatar, I currently resemble a red x.

So if I become a judge, can I wear a robe that says "Black Power" on it while presiding over a trial involving a hate crime? Hmm?

18 of my 19 students passed their (standardized) grammar tests this semester! Woohoo!

Because you asked nicely. In most cases, any one of these would be insufficient to prove plagiarism. Taken as a whole, however, the evidence is devastating.

Steve is correct. Some obvious examples: "The Counsel of the Lord" in the Blue Book borrows heavily, without citation, from Bullinger. The first chapter of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today begins with rampant plagiarism from JE Stiles. The Q&A in the same book was modeled after Stiles' Q&A (perfectly fair) and included at least one question and answer block which was heavily lifted from Stiles (not fair). For those wondering, it's question 8. Order My Steps in Thy Word lifts liberally from EW Kenyon (interestingly, in the very same chapter, Wierwille credits Kenyon with a rather lengthy story. THAT was not plagiarism, but the passages that preceded it were clearly plagiarized). There are other examples, but the point's made, no?

What do you mean by "The Upper Room Theory"? That the 120 were in the upper room? I personally think Wierwille got that right (and have seen other, independent studies suggest the same thing).

Correct. You can also lie to your family and it's not perjury. It's still wrong, but it's not perjury. Using material by another author without crediting the other author is dishonest. "Hey, honey, I wrote you this poem: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day..." It's just plain old flat out lying. I'm not saying your personal letters have to come with footnotes. But dishonesty is dishonesty no matter what. Incorrect. It is plagiarism if you publish (aka, publicize) your work, regardless of whether you make a profit off it. You can plagiarize in a letter to the editor. They don't pay you for it, but they publish it, and that makes you a plagiarist. If you plagiarized for a pamphlet and gave it away on the street corner, that's still plagiarism. The level of profit is immaterial. 2. Yes it is. 1. Depends on what you mean by "simply using." I don't credit the inventors of the alphabet everytime I begin an article. But the moment I'm expressing someone else's ideas in their words, it's incumbent upon me to cite the source. You're missing the point. Any one of us can publish a King James Bible, as it's no longer copyrighted. However, if I were to distribute a Bible called "The King James Bible, by Rafael Olmeda" that contains nothing but the King James Bible text, I have committed plagiarism, even though the "original author(s)" are long dead. Depends in large measure on the uniqueness of the combination of words you're using. I am not foolish enough to believe that every word combination I've ever used is original, but if I ever try to pass off "I think, therefore I am" as my own saying, then I'd be correctly labeled a plagiarist. Correct. Incorrect. The analysis was riddled with error. Correct. This is more to the point of what Wierwille did than most other explanations. Correct.

This one is almost amusing. This dispatch from Mobile, Alabamie.

The title of this thread is screwed up. It says "A friend of mine thinks ExCathedra is hot." That implies it's a matter of opinion and that it may or may not be true. It should more accurately read, in the literal translation according to that's-the-fact-Jack, "A friend of mine acknowledges the undeniable truth that ExCathedra is hot." You'd better believe it.

Can't see it. Can someone offer a brief description?

I'm trying to remember my history. I found the CES site about the same time I found Waydale, but I think CES had a forum up before Waydale did. I eventually joined both, but was an infrequent poster on Waydale. I was more a CES site junkie (some GREAT stuff on that board). Then, of course, came the fateful day that THE CES board closed down, and I jumped on Waydale to tell everyone. We all know what happen THEn. After that I was into Waydale. I didn't jump to Greasespot until Waydale closed.

Thanks. I don't remember the Bayunga uprising being a part of POP. Then, I am grateful to say, I lost my copy of that rag ages ago and have not downloaded a new copy even though it's widely available.

Flat Stanley has arrived in sunny Fort Lauderdale (and it really is sunny, and cool). I took him to "Old Fort Lauderdale," our historic district, this morning. Our historic district consists of about five or six houses built between 1900-1920. Some history. Anyway, we're going postcard shopping later and then he's headed for Tampa.

Rick! Where've you been!?! E-mail me.

If Posh Spice was at the Nativity, I don't think anyone would have called her the VIRGIN Mary.

What predictions?

He's 84. There are nine cast members left. All munchkins.