[Vision2020] Fondly my foolish heart essays

[Art Deco aka W. Fox]

Captain Kirker,

Thank you for placing Christ Church Cult Master's recent , though perhaps not 
only, plagiarism in a historical and biblical perspective.

I am sure the cultie lurkers will fawningly pass your message on to his 
Supremeness.

Unfortunately, though your message will be understood by most Vision 2020 
readers, it will be lost on Cult Master Wilson.

In my opinion Wilson no longer believes in any god but himself.  The supposition 
that he is a con artist using religion as his hook explains many things:  his 
dishonesty, his sleazy tactics, his arrogant disregard for the intelligence of 
others, his manipulation and use of credulous gulls, and his fear and 
condescending dislike of women who are generally by circumstance much better 
able to see through him than men.

Thanks for exposing more of his purulent blight, however.

Wayne

Art Deco  (Wayne Fox)
deco at moscow.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Captain Kirker
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com
  Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 11:11 AM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Fondly my foolish heart essays


  Visionheads:



  In 1991, the Wolfman wrote a provocative essay called "Wrestling With Wesley," 
which he later published in a book called Greyfriars Covenant. In the article 
Wilson indicted the eighteenth-century evangelist John Wesley for three of his 
lesser-known, albeit egregious sins: misrepresentation, plagiarism, and slander.



  Now the ironies here are legion, but I shall limit myself to one. Regarding 
Wesley's plagiarism, the Wolfman wrote:

    "The problem with [A Calm Address to Our American Colonies] was that Wesley 
did not write substantial portions of it. In the course of approximately ten 
pages, Wesley used numerous sections taken verbatim from Samuel Johnson's 
Taxation No Tyranny. In the first edition of Calm Address, Wesley did not 
indicate in any way that he had borrowed text from Johnson-Wesley represented 
the work as his own. This laid him open to the just charge of plagiarism, and 
those charges were not long in coming. In a preface to the second edition, 
Wesley acknowledged his indebtedness to the other pamphlet, but this was too 
late.! A plagiarist does not cease to be a plagiarist because he admits the 
obvious after he has been caught. . . . He stole the words of another and did 
not acknowledge that he had done so. As mentioned above, he acknowledged his 
debt to Samuel Johnson in the second edition, but even then he did not 
acknowledge that he had done any wrong in the silence of the first edition." 
(The Wolfman, Greyfriars Covenant: Essays on Evangelism & Apologetics [Moscow, 
ID: Greyfriars Hall Press, 2001] 171, 172)

  But after the Wolfman got caught plagiarizing, he posted this on his web 
splotch:

    "I have pasted below a couple of quotations. The first is from a footnote in 
the revised edition [Southern Slavery As It Was], which is forthcoming. . . From 
the footnote: 'In fact, we would like to publicly thank Dr. [Blank], a gracious 
Christian scholar (who differs with us enthusiastically), for alerting us to 
some grotesque mistakes in the footnoting of our first edition.'" (The Wolfman, 
Splotch & Maysplotch, August 4, 2004).

  I called it ironic because this confirms that John Wesley and the Wolfman 
share at least one thing in common: they both wrote "revised" editions of their 
plagiarized screeds in which neither of them admitted that "he had done any 
wrong in the silence of the first edition."



  Finally, what does the Wolfman say about ministers who plagiarize? He wrote:

    "When the world recently learned that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a 
plagiarist, those who had a vested interest in keeping him up on his pedestal 
immediately began talking about feet of clay, the human condition, and we all 
struggle, do we not? In other words, Dr. King was a scoundrel, but we will admit 
no evidence that supports the claim and treat as a scoundrel anyone who dares to 
present the evidence. When confronted, against our will, with indisputable 
evidence that our hero was not foremost among the saints, the automatic response 
is to interpret it as evidence that King had a 'weakness' or a 'failing.' But 
never is it called by its Biblical name-sin.

           "Such an option is not open to us. As Christians, we have to take 
into account what God's Word requires of us. The qualifications for fellowship 
are different than those of leadership. In Titus 1, and First Timothy 3, God's 
requirements for leadership are strict-and clear. According to those 
requirements, John Wesley was not qualified to be a leader of God's people; he 
was not 'blameless' in the text's sense." (The Wolfman, Greyfriars Covenant 
[Moscow, ID: Greyfriars Hall Press, 2001] 171, 172)



  Memo to the Wolfman:

  The judgment you have meted out has been measured back to you. God's 
requirements for leadership are strict and clear. According to those 
requirements, you are not qualified to be a leader of God's people; you are not 
"blameless" in the text's sense. Resign from the ministry at once and sing with 
the Captain:



  Whate'er I fondly counted mine,

  To thee, my Lord, I here restore;

  Gladly I all for thee resign;

  Give me thyself, I ask no more.



  Attention kirkers: you can examine the Wolfman's plagiarism at this link:

  http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/Plagiarism.htm



  And you can read his entire essay on Wesley at this link:

  http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v2n1/ant_v2n1_Wesley.html



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet,
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                 http://www.fsr.net
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040910/af8bde84/attachment-0001.htm