Plagiarism is the use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.


I at no point claimed that as my own. even though I consider it very much my own.
I found it very relevant, so I posted an excerpt, and added a little of my own. not to impress anyone, but to further the conversation. thats whats posts are for are they not?
Plagiarism focuses attention on content and away from incidental issues, by making the genuine origins of the material impossible to ascertain. Besides, as suggested above, it could be argued that the genuine origins of the contents of most inspirations and propositions are impossible to determine anyway. By signing a new name, or no name at all, to a text, the plagiarizer puts the material in an entirely new context, and this may generate new perspectives and new thinking about the subject that have not appeared before. Plagiarism also makes it possible to combine the best or most relevant parts of a number of texts, thus creating a new text with many of the virtues of the older ones—and some new virtues, as well, since the combination of material from different sources is bound to result in unforeseeable effects and might well result in the unlocking of hidden meanings or possibilities that have been dormant in the texts for years. Finally, above all, plagiarism is the re-appropriation of ideas: when an individual plagiarizes a text which those who believe in intellectual property would have held "sacred," they deny that there is a difference in rank between themselves and the thinker they take from. They take the thinker's ideas for themselves, to express them as they see fit, rather than treating the thinker as an authority whose work they are duty-bound to preserve as intended. They deny, in fact, that there is a fundamental difference between the thinker and the rest of humanity, by appropriating the thinker's material as the property of humanity. After all, a good idea should be available to everyone—should belong to everyone—if it really is a good idea. In a society organized with human happiness as the objective, copyright infringement laws and similar restrictions would not hinder the distribution and recombination of ideas. These impediments only make it more difficult for individuals who are looking for challenging and inspiring material to come upon it and share it with others.

non-affiliated christian though technically catholic.
its the best. Islam 2nd best
anything with one god and ISNT jewish is good. unless your jewish and believe in christ

I smell your anti-semitism from here

All Jews believe in Christ but not the same way as Christians.

Lol wuth a name like SS Reichs Fuhrer, you would be Jew hater.

jesus was jewish you know

SS Reich Fuhrer understands that Christianity started as a form of Judaism right?

but to each his own

Jewish, but all this thead is geting anoing

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out how silly this Nazi is. For one thing, he spelled "Führer" wrong. If you don't want to use the umlauts you have to use "ue" or else it isn't a word. Also, it would be one word, "Reichsführer," and SS would come second if he intended to have it be the SS rank instead of Hitler's office.

If you're going to be a Nazi, have some basic understanding of the German language or else you embarrass yourself twice over. This is ridiculous.

how do you use umlauts in this text box? I cant figure out how to use any kind of accent mark. Do I need to copy paste it from a word document using the special characters box?

I think there's a way to set shortcut keys, but I just copied and pasted. It's not too much effort, particularly for your name.

I'm calling shenanigans on this Nazi guy. There's no way he's for real. =)

Sorry, but I find the fact Invictus had to explain all of that in order to declare that the fake neo-Nazi Christian is ridiculous to be quite amusing. No offense Invictus, that last paragraph just got a laugh out of me.

But yeah, there's no way he's for real...and if he were then he just got ueber pwnd by Invictus, lol.

Oh, and I'm Catholic.

But seriously, even if you don't have respect for the Catholic Church, at least think about the kids you're talking about when you make those disgusting child molestation jokes - whether about priests or anyone else in the world. Whatever the abusers get is too good for them, but don't make a joke out of something that has ruined a young child's life.

christians believe in one god?

Is that a joke? That's got to be a joke.

this is a ridiculously long thread

no seriously, there's the father, the son and the holy spirit. that's 3 by my count

I'm not going to explain the Trinity to you, but it's one God.

well abraham and moses never knew of the trinity. i don't believe jesus didn't either, it was made up by paul or some other dude. jesus never called himself god or asked to be worshiped. he was more of a prophet.

Thankfully the trinity was nevery mentioned in any book of the Bible (accepted books, I dont know about all of the alleged books). The Catholics created the idea of the trinity and basically purged the aryans who did not accept this before, during, and after the Council.

Heresy!

And it was Arians, not Aryans. There's a difference.

well its the truth, there's even passages where jesus would go up to the mountain in seclusion and pray to the Father. does that make sense? god praying to himself?

Keep in mind that Catholics compiled the Bible...all those books in the New Testament? The Church had a collection of writings, most of which had no authors' names on them, and selected the ones to include in the Bible based on what was accepted as Christian dogma. Therefore the Bible gets its credibility from the Catholic Church (which is why I still don't understand why Protestants read it, at least the New Testament - and I'm a convert from Protestantism) just as do doctrines such as the concept of the Trinity. In fact, if you take the Bible without any outside information you don't get much of a coherent religion at all, because it was compiled with the intention that it would be a tool to teach already-established Christian dogma.

Oh, Im sorry, I understand the difference. I dont think the early catholic church supported the notion of Hitler's supreme race of Blonde/blue eyed white people.

Oh, and that was all done at the Council of Nicaea, which did much to establish Trinitarianism in the Church (hence the Nicene Creed).

Hey, according to the Revelation of St. Peter God says we're all going to Heaven in the end anyway, so no need to fear! If only this book were in the canon!

thats the muslim view that jesus was a man like moses, abraham, adam etc. he was the messiah, sent by God to the jewish people.
muslims see the worship of jesus as blasphemy of the highest order. "thou shall not take any other god but me"?