Originally posted by gb93433:
Whoever told you that? Is that your own rule? So the school you went to allows writing without documentation?
No, again this is common knowledge (and way off topic). You are not required to document every single thing. You document views that are unique, that are original to someone, or that are not common. For instance, I don't need to provide documentation that WWII started in 1939. That is common knowledge. I do need to document a quote that I make about the beginning of WWII. My point is that common knowledge does not need to be documented.
Secondly, this is a discussion forum, not a technical research paper. I didn't find a need to document an off the cuff comment I was making. When you asked for it, I gave it.
Anytime you even look at a source to use for an idea it is to go into a bibliography.
Again, not always. Sometimes the bibliography is of works consulted, sometimes of works cited. It depends on your purpose or instructions. Many times in writing, you pick up a book to see if it says anything about your topic. You don't include it when it doesn't. Different professors have different rules on this.
Who determines when it is general information?
The writer generally determines that it is common knowledge if it appears in numbers of sources (i.e., unanimous and well known), or is something known without benefit of direct study (e.g., WWII started in 1939).
I would understand if you have never done a paper or a thesis. Apparently you are not aware of some of the facts.
I am well familiar with rules of documentation. I have written probably close to one thousand pages of research with full documentation. My thesis bibliography is 10 pages long and the thesis contains 328 footnotes in just over 100 pages. So I am familiar with the rules of documentation, and in research writing, safe is always better than sorry.
The typical penalty for plagiarism is expulsion and rightly so. You cannot steal someone else's work and claim it as your own.
If it so well known by the world then why did you even write what you wrote? As soon as I read you posting I went to bgea.org and saw something quite different than your claim. So somebody is wrong.
I wrote what I wrote because you didn't know about it apparently. These quotes of Graham go back more than 30 years, and his actions go back more than 50 years.
[qb]I don't spend my time researching Graham.
[/b]I don't either. I just happened to know something about this. I haven't taken a lot of time to do my personal research. I have cited articles that quote Graham. When I made the original statements, I made statements that are well known. When I cited specific quotes, I gave the source for them.
So you tried to argue your case and then finally gave some sources.
I told you something. You didn't believe me, so I proved it.
You never did the names of the people of the men you said he respected.
Bob Jones Sr and Jr among others. Jones Sr was a mentor to Graham in his early days. Jones Jr and Graham were contemporaries, and Jones Jr preached for Graham at some of his crusades, such as Columbia.
If that is the only thing you can find wrong with the man it is quite small.
Denial of the gospel and participation with apostates is not small, at least not in the Scripture.
Many pastors preach what was written in that quote in his interview with Schuler.
And they are wrong. It was wrong to be sitting with Schuller to begin with. Schuller is an apostate who has denied the gospel. To sit with him in an approving setting is sin. Graham failed to obey the biblical command to mark, expose, and separate from false teachers. He should have never been there, unless to confront Schuller's false teaching.
But I would bet that if you submitted the transcripts of your sermons we would be happy to shred you too and call you a heretic and some would even question your salvation as some have questioned Graham's salvation.
I bet you wouldn't, but I have perhaps said some things that could be misunderstood. But Graham's comments have been consistent over more than 30 years. His clarifications have been clear and have supported what I and others have said. His actions of participation with apostates have been consistent over 50 years. That is not an anomaly or a poorly chosen word.
I am waiting for the next evengelist to come out of the same camp Graham's his critics. [/qutoe]Why? There are many fruitful evangelists preaching even now. There are many people being saved. The fact that Graham had unique opportunities in his era should not lead us to expect the same from others.
While the church has been declining across America for about the past 50 years the worst critics are the best at discipling people and teaching them to share their faith and disciple others.
There are a great many people standing for faith and obedience who spend great amounts of time discipling others. These things are not mutually exclusive. One can obey God's word in both areas: We can expose and separate from false teachers and disobedient brothers and disciple people at the same time. And many people are. One does not have to condone Graham in order to be discipling others.
Isn't it amazing how those who claim to have all of their theology right and criticize others are doing the least to rectify the problem.
I wouldn't grant your presupposition. I think it is far from the truth. I think there are a great many standing against Graham's methods while rectifying the situation.
I can remember well the one church that so many get a lot of their information from never once knocked on my door in the 14 years I lived in the same town not far from that church.
So?
I noticed that you never wondered why Graham will not allow a TV in his hotel room. Do you allow a TV in your hotel room? Do you watch TV?
I didn't know that, but that is fine. The Bible doesn't speak to that. One can have a TV and not sin; they can not have a TV and sin.
I did find it interesting that in Just As I Am, Graham said he left BJU because the dating rules were too strict but in his own ministry his personal rules are even stricter. It was a moment I laughed. I found it very ironic. Graham will not go into a hotel room by himself. But he left BJU because he could not go out with girls by himself.
I do watch TV. I have one. I control what I watch.
So how do you compare to Graham in watching TV in trying to remain holy and pure? [/b]
I hope and pray that by the time I am 80, I have the testimony of personal integrity that Graham has. I hope and pray that by the time I am 80 I have been more faithful to the gospel of Christ and obedience to God than Graham has been. I can praise God for the souls saved under his ministry. I can admire his integrity and commitment. I cannot justify his disobedience in word and action.
Why can you not separate those things?
