Posted on 07/26/2014 4:41:46 AM PDT by michaelwlf3
I am coming up on my first year as an ordained minister in a continuing Anglican church, and I have noticed that participating on political forums (even when the topic is religious) I find that my opinions and postings more often than not generate more hatred than anything else. Among the things I often hear are that the laity are the real priests and that I am a Pharisee, that my vocation disqualifies me from offering an opinion on anything Christian because I am too narrow minded, and (my personal favorite) because I look too Catholic I must be a child molester.
Are these people really Christians?
If you want it to be more than your opinion, yes, besides the use of reason. Thus the abundant refs in the NT to the OT.
Besides what you emphasized imputes motive. You made it an issue when you imputed a motive to deceive on the part of another poster.
Is that not what plagiarism is? Deception?
Not necessarily willful. From http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/types-of-plagiarism:
#2. CTRL-C Contains significant portions of text from a single source without alterations.
And, as said, posting large portions of someone else's work without any attribution is "posting it as if it were your own" as i originally said . One reading what was posted would normally be deceived into thinking it was original, even if it was not intentional.
Regardless of motive, such an act as lifting 400+ words of a work not even just bits an pieces, without giving credit is wrong.
"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13:7)
Or do you think it is right to just lift swaths of material from whoever and past it in our posts, without any attribution and even making it indistinguishable from our own words? Yes or no?
And if this was an oversight, as often is the case (Prots do it also) then an apology is in order.
Do you agree or not?
Nonetheless, while G. Larry has only defended his unattributed use of the material of another, I do apologize for any attribution of willful motive to deceive. If only he would admit it was an unintended error on his part to not do so.
My being an "RC" has nothing to do with it. Taken to its logical conclusion I suppose plagiarism is in the eye of the beholder, particularly based on one's confession of faith. Besides it's an assumption on your part.
Plagiarism is not precisely legally defined, but as said, lifting significant portions of material from whoever and pasting it in our posts, without any attribution and even making it indistinguishable from our own words is not proper in any case.
Those who follow my postings can attest that i often post material from others, and it is my practice to and carefully provide the source, and usually use a different color as well.
Nor was i being picky, as I am not saying reiteration of something in general is plagiarism, and indeed we are all plagiarists to varying degrees, even if unconsciously. Nor is plagiarism is copying mere information, nor would i object to a bit from Wikipedia being copied, but this was 400+ words of material that was not his own, and which i noted in one sentence.
And note what RC apologist John Martignoni, author of Apologetics for The Masses, counsels,
What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you’re discussing. Don’t hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there. If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out – I don’t see any problem, as long as you’re doing it in private correspondence.
I’m not talking about borrowing verbiage from folks and then publishing your own book or something, but just using what other people have written in a private conversation where the intent is to save someone’s soul.... However, if you quote from someone without reference, and then give the person a link to the article or newsletter you quote from so that they can “read more” on that particular subject – well, that’s works fine by me. I don’t know of any Catholic apologist who would mind if you quote them without citation...- http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/detail/119
Here what was sanctioned for private use was done publicly, yet without even a link. And the RM rules are, " When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions." http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
As an aside, by what authority do you appeal that demands that your particular brand of polemic merits a response?
Ultimately I appeal to Scripture as the assured word of God, and reason, and Scripture supports being reasonable. If you do not see this as worthy of response, then there is no compulsion on your part to answer. This is not the Inquisition. But as you have taken to defend an improper (at the least) practice, it is only reasonable for you to respond to reasonable responses.
Definition of INSOLENT 1: rude or impolite : having or showing a lack of respect for other people Nothing rude or impolite about my response. I trust this meets your level of scholarship, however.
: INSOLENT 1. insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insolent
Defending the one who posted 400+ words from another source as if it was his own, but only asking me to apologize is insultingly speech. However, as said, i do apologize for inference of willful deception, which cannot be proved - though it was not denied - and is contrary to RF rules.
You are missing the point, number one, and number two, if you think you are going to give me the third degree I’d like to see some ID.
Call me a liar again and I’ll insult you again. I don’t have to lie, the truth is bad enough. Once again, it is clear to me that you didn’t understand that the OP was about INTERNET discussion, and it’s too bad that priest had to go through that with an extremely rude person face to face.
You do:
"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13:7)
When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions. - http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
When quoting another website, article, book, etc. be sure to include adequate source information, e.g. url, link, title, author, date, publisher, etc. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=3411#3411
If he is citing an on-line source, then a url or hotlink is preferred both for the moderators checking copyright restrictions and for those wishing to learn more and verify the quote in context. — http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3134010/posts?page=157#157
Ignoring you, is what you’re due.
I don’t know about that. Take a look at this link and see what ya think.
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hebrew.htm
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
The SPIRIT gives life. The flesh is no help at all.
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Believes. Not eats.
Don't eat the blood. Why? Because the life is in the blood.
Don't eat the blood, the life is in the blood
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Jesus blood was poured out. It is gone.
The blood is for atonement, not consumption.
All those sacrifices prefigure Christ and the blood was NOT to be eaten.
I wouldn’t say extinct because it would have been used in Jewish circles and for sure in the temple etc. However it certainly wasn’t the language of the general public and certainly not in the Gentile world which was the focus of the New Testament. The Holy Spirit certainly knew that the language that would reach the most people for the longest period of time would be the Greek. Today we have the sacred name and Hebrew roots cults trying to rebuild the sect of Pharisees though they would deny that. Their position illustrates a total lack of faith that God could preserve His word as He intended and promised.
And all too often overlooked by not only Catholics but others as well is the fact that people grow in their faith and understanding which may lead them to other groups that focus on more of the meat of scripture while the group or “church” they were in stay with the milk.
A large number left when the thought he was talking about the physical flesh and blood. The eating of which was strictly prohibited since God first set laws. Those that stayed evidently had faith enough that they knew He would not be talking about something that directly contradicted what God had told them earlier. Jesus in fact did explain a short time later that it wasn’t the flesh but the Spirit that gives life so clearly those that left misunderstood just as the Catholics have done and still do.
And, you've been hung up on this consumption of blood for a long time now, as Christ's admonition of the need to consume His Blood is somehow equivalent to the blood of animals.
You take on these antics to avoid addressing the direct words of Christ.
I understand them in the spirit that they were spokjen.
Which of these words of Christ do you not understand?--->
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
I just LOVE the smell of elderberries in the morning!
Yet; you didn't...
The birth into the incorruptible body is the spiritual birth.
It has not yet happened to anyone but Yeshua.
Your lack of understanding on this in no way surprises me.
WE are not presently equipped for existence in the Kingdom; corruptible flesh cannot enter therein; that is what Yeshua was discussing with Nicodemus, who was already well educated in all things spiritual, having been educated in the gospel as taught by Moses from birth. Paul also explained this (1Cor 15:51-54)
.
I’ve posted the text of the solid proof that it is impossible that even a single epistle of the NT was originally written in Greek at least five times now, do I need spam this thread with a long post to show your deception?
.
No, you posted speculation that you thought was proof and fell for. Let’s see the original manuscripts of the Hebrew text that precedes the Greek.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.