quite possibly because he gives gifts to ALL. It's just, part of the package.
I could use my "gifts" to be quite destructive..
but I choose not to.
Yes, I can agree that God possibly gives all of us "gifts". I'm not convinced of it though as it regards talents. However, if VP was given the gift of charisma to draw people to God's Word and it was a gift given to him by God then it served it's purpose. The question becomes -- Was it the ultimate purpose?
I suppose since the actual subject of this thread was played out long ago and if I didn't revive it this current line of discussion can be seen as no great disservice to WW.
That's no mistake, my dear Raf. That's the way we operate -- meaning it's human nature. Everything you see or hear involves making a judgment.
We make judgments on things that require judgment. We make observations on things that don't require judgment. You may judge the sky to be blue, but to me, that's merely an observation, not a judgment.
Well, I've quite aware of how "history" can be revised or is influenced by bias. For instance: I believe there's a new movie out -- don't know the title -- which looks at WWII from the perspective of the Japanese. Do you think it will mirror what our (U.S.) historians write about the period?
I think it was Flags of Iwo Jima, or something like that. Look, the perspective of the Japanese soldiers is an unexplored part of history. But it is not up to your judgment to determine whether the U.S. and the Japanese militaries were opponents during World War II. That's not judgment or perspective. That's history. We fought the Japanese. Just like it's history that there was a collaborative effort to put some of Wierwille's books together. Not disputable. No one's arguing it.
I appreciate and understand how it takes several pieces of the puzzle put together to see the "grand picture". However, I think I should make it clear that I'm not interested in nodding my head in agreement with what you or others say (even if I do agree). I'm more interested in challenging your opinions.
There's an old saying: you're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts. Challenge my opinions all you want. But that's not what you're doing here. You're challenging facts, which itself is fine. If you need more proof, good luck finding it. I don't. I think it's fairly established.
Surely you don't object to that?
Not at all. But I think it's an unnecessary waste of time. "Is there a law of believing"? is arguable, and a judgment call, and worthy of debate. "Is the color of the jacket of 'Jesus Christ is Not God' yellow"? is not arguable, and wrangling over it is a waste of time.
If you do then, consider yourself just a carbon copy of leaders from TWI in that regard. Many of them, also, didn't like to be challenged. I know that from first-hand experience.
My condolences.
Well, I just let my computer do the work for me by doing a word search of VP's books. It found no matches for your assertion. But please do let me know if you find something. I hate it when my software doesn't work as I expect it to.
A word search depends on inputting the correct word. Crack open the books if you're really going to look for the comment, rather than declaring it to not be there. It's definitely there. The only thing I question right now is my memory and characterization of the context. Try a word search of "debt" and "responsibility." Maybe "contents" as well. I'm trying to remember the exact words, but I cannot.
We make judgments on things that require judgment. We make observations on things that don't require judgment. You may judge the sky to be blue, but to me, that's merely an observation, not a judgment.
Ok, true enuf but, when you making the declaration that the sky is blue you're making a judgment. Are we on the same page as to how the word "judgment" is defined? Perhaps not.
I think it was Flags of Iwo Jima, or something like that. Look, the perspective of the Japanese soldiers is an unexplored part of history. But it is not up to your judgment to determine whether the U.S. and the Japanese militaries were opponents during World War II. That's not judgment or perspective. That's history. We fought the Japanese. Just like it's history that there was a collaborative effort to put some of Wierwille's books together. Not disputable. No one's arguing it.
You're right about the title of the film. History is never written without bias and bias is contributory factor in formulating our opinions. (Note: bias is not necessarily a negative connotation).
There's an old saying: you're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Hmm . . . yes I've heard that said. I believe it was a politician who said it. :)
Challenge my opinions all you want. But that's not what you're doing here. You're challenging facts, which itself is fine. If you need more proof, good luck finding it. I don't. I think it's fairly established.
Well, methinks we have a difference of opinion. What you see with your own eyes or hear with your own ears may not necessarily be a fact. The mind filters what we see and hear through a prism of our biases. There's no avoiding it. The "fact" that many others share your perspective does not a fact make.
I know that from first-hand experience.
My condolences.
I think you're growing on me.
A word search depends on inputting the correct word.
Oh heck Raf -- I know that. It's not like I just started employing the technique.
Crack open the books if you're really going to look for the comment, rather than declaring it to not be there.
I didn't declare "it's not there." I think I even conceded that there's a possibility that it is there and asked that you let me know if you find it. If you do -- GREAT! If not, then -- no big deal.
If my research is a wrong dividing of God's Word, then I stand before God as an unapproved workman. Either way I accept full responsibility. I have checked God's Word hundreds of times over, and thus I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ is not God but the Son of God.
Some people seem to be able to just turn on the light, and wowser.. they could sell you an iceberg in the middle of the winter.
Unfortunately, that's saying more about the "buyer's" naivety than about the "seller's" talent. Was it P.T. Barnum who said -- "There's a sucker born every second."?
There are quite a few people who had this kind of charisma.. could draw in a very large crowd, and used it for evil purposes exclusively.
True.
Others used it for evil when they weren't using it to communicate the bible..
True.
others, plain didn't do any evil with it, just good.
True.
And then others used it originally for good and ended up using it for evil.
I wonder how much of it really is connected to our concept of christian gifts of the spirit, or holy spirit.
Well, studies have suggested that many talents we have are inherited. I wouldn't exclude genetics having a major role in these so-called "God-given abilities".
Well, studies have suggested that many talents we have are inherited. I wouldn't exclude genetics having a major role in these so-called "God-given abilities".
Could be. Or these talents were learned from parents during a brief window of opportunity. Human speech is like that. I forget the age range.. but I think children are most susceptible to learning language from six months to maybe five or six years old. If they are deprived, they can never make up the lack of early exposure to language. Feral children (lived in the wild) could never recover from that loss, or become productive in society.
Well, a sucker may be born every minute.. but not everybody can be convincing enough to sell them the Brooklyn bridge.
Well, a sucker may be born every minute.. but not everybody can be convincing enough to sell them the Brooklyn bridge.
That's probably 'cause even suckers know the Brooklyn bridge isn't worth buying 'cause it's in New York and they say New York although a nice place to visit, no one in their right mind would want to live there.
Raf, although the exact wording doesn't match yours in regards to the responsibility aspect I was able to find this . . .
To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful.
. . . which comes closest to your inquiry.
Doesn't Wierwille actually say in at least one of the books that it was a great big collaborative work, but in the end the contents are his responsibility? He's telling you how the book came about. Anyone have that? I'm pretty sure it's either JCOP or JCOPS.
"These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area.
All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks...."
I gave a short opinion. Why you perceived some sort of less-than-polite action from it is beyond me.
I perceive you have intelligence and maturity, which you may choose to exercise as you see fit.
I would ask you to so choose.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Ummmm.
Could you repeat the question?
Raf said
Doesn't Wierwille actually say in at least one of the books that it was a great big collaborative work, but in the end the contents are his responsibility? He's telling you how the book came about. Anyone have that? I'm pretty sure it's either JCOP or JCOPS.
That's what Larry's looking for.
He thinks he may have found it, I disagree and think Raf meant something else.
"These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area.
All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks...."
I gave a short opinion. Why you perceived some sort of less-than-polite action from it is beyond me.
I perceive you have intelligence and maturity, which you may choose to exercise as you see fit.
I would ask you to so choose.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Well, I was wondering when you were going to get around to actually citing the rules. (Did you happen to notice the full names listed on the header?). Look WW, maybe it's best if we just choose to ignore each other. Since your very first response I sensed a certain degree of -- hmm -- aggression in your replies to me. I don't know if you just don't like having someone disagree with you or if you have some god-like attitude but, let's just make a deal to avoid each other.
Well, I was wondering when you were going to get around to actually citing the rules. (Did you happen to notice the full names listed on the header?). Look WW, maybe it's best if we just choose to ignore each other. Since your very first response I sensed a certain degree of -- hmm -- aggression in your replies to me.
That would have been true in SOME of my posts.
Extrapolating that to ALL my posts is jumping to a conclusion.
I don't know if you just don't like having someone disagree with you or if you have some god-like attitude but, let's just make a deal to avoid each other.
If you review SOME of my posts to you with a cold, clinical eye, you'd see some of them have been
devoid of "disagree" or "god-like attitude."
I've disagreed with some people here quite verbosely on some threads, and at some times
(and sometimes just on some pages), only to agree with them on other pages,
even to the point of posting specifically to agree with them.
If I thought you were incapable of mature discussion, I would just avoid you.
However, I think I can hold you to the exact same standard to which I hold MYSELF.
(I've mentioned that, perhaps you missed it.)
Personally, I think that indicates treating you as an equal even when we disagree.
Perhaps you see it differently.
I'd rather give this a little time to play out.
If you just can't view my posts without flying into a rage afterwards, then perhaps we can
work something out.
I'm thinking it won't have to come to that.
(Which is my opinion, and I hope not to be proven wrong.)
Doesn't Wierwille actually say in at least one of the books that it was a great big collaborative work, but in the end the contents are his responsibility? He's telling you how the book came about. Anyone have that? I'm pretty sure it's either JCOP or JCOPS.
You are simplifying but I found two such acknowledgements one in each of JCOP and one in JCOPS. Here is an exerpt from each:
JCOP:
"Many dedicated people have assisted me in the preparation and publication of this book, a project which I have worked on periodically for two decades. However, in the early 1970's, I solicited the cooperation of Walter J. Cummins, Chairman of our Research department, to check my research thoroughly and critically concerning all the Gospel records starting with six days before the death of Jesus Christ to the day of Pentecost." ....
VP continues by citing the various manuscripts and he specifically names these people as having assisted in the work:
"Walter J. Cummins in Greek, Bernita Jess and Gary R. Curtis in Aramaic, Bo Reahard in Eastern customs, John Crouch in figures of speech, Chip Stansbury in history and documentation, and Michele C. Curtis in organizing and editing the material. Donna Randal, my research secretary for many years, helped immeasurably in evaluating the material and contirbuting to it. Karen W. Martin, my daughter, took primary responsibility for the editing of the manuscript. Rhoda Becker Wierwill, assisted by Joyce Ziegler, Marian Moczydlowski, and others in The Way International's Word Processing department, typed and retyped the manuscript ... Rosalie Rivenbark, Tom Plain and the staff..finalized the manuscript for publication. As is evident, this book is truly the result of a large team effort with years of research, study, checking, and rechecking. Others besides those named above have been consulted and have assisted in the production of this work."
JCOPS:
"This book Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed came into concretion with the assistance of the scholarship of a group of qualified research men and women. In August of 1979 a research team, consisting of Walter J. Cummins, John Crouch, Gary R. Curtis, Michele C. Curtis, Bernita Jess, Karen W. Martin, Donna Randall, Bo Rheahard, and Chip Stansbury, joined me in considering my original research work on the birth of Christ....Karen Wierwille Martin, along with Michele C. Curtis, reworked the research manuscript for its structure and clarity of communication. The manuscript in its numerous drafts was tirelessly retyped by our Word Processing department under the supervision of Joann Herman. Camille Kavasansky and Babara Geer proofread the manuscript...Tom Plain prepared the copy for publicationn...Rosalie F. Rivenbark oversaw production...Emogene Allen prepared (it) for marketing."
These are of course "exerpts" as I do not feel like typing it all out. I am sure that I put in enough of the "acknowledgement" to corroberate Raf's memory. My books are dated JCOP "fourth impression 1981" and JCOPS "second impression 1983".
Larry, I do not know what you might be looking at but perhaps you simply don't have the correct "impression".
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
25
27
59
Popular Days
Jun 8
60
Jun 7
55
Jun 10
38
Jan 4
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 26 posts
WordWolf 25 posts
Ham 27 posts
Larry N Moore 59 posts
Popular Days
Jun 8 2007
60 posts
Jun 7 2007
55 posts
Jun 10 2007
38 posts
Jan 4 2007
18 posts
Larry N Moore
Yes, I can agree that God possibly gives all of us "gifts". I'm not convinced of it though as it regards talents. However, if VP was given the gift of charisma to draw people to God's Word and it was a gift given to him by God then it served it's purpose. The question becomes -- Was it the ultimate purpose?
I suppose since the actual subject of this thread was played out long ago and if I didn't revive it this current line of discussion can be seen as no great disservice to WW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
We make judgments on things that require judgment. We make observations on things that don't require judgment. You may judge the sky to be blue, but to me, that's merely an observation, not a judgment.
I think it was Flags of Iwo Jima, or something like that. Look, the perspective of the Japanese soldiers is an unexplored part of history. But it is not up to your judgment to determine whether the U.S. and the Japanese militaries were opponents during World War II. That's not judgment or perspective. That's history. We fought the Japanese. Just like it's history that there was a collaborative effort to put some of Wierwille's books together. Not disputable. No one's arguing it.There's an old saying: you're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts. Challenge my opinions all you want. But that's not what you're doing here. You're challenging facts, which itself is fine. If you need more proof, good luck finding it. I don't. I think it's fairly established.
Not at all. But I think it's an unnecessary waste of time. "Is there a law of believing"? is arguable, and a judgment call, and worthy of debate. "Is the color of the jacket of 'Jesus Christ is Not God' yellow"? is not arguable, and wrangling over it is a waste of time.My condolences.
A word search depends on inputting the correct word. Crack open the books if you're really going to look for the comment, rather than declaring it to not be there. It's definitely there. The only thing I question right now is my memory and characterization of the context. Try a word search of "debt" and "responsibility." Maybe "contents" as well. I'm trying to remember the exact words, but I cannot.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Sure he won't mind if we "borrow" it for a while..
Some people seem to be able to just turn on the light, and wowser.. they could sell you an iceberg in the middle of the winter.
There are quite a few people who had this kind of charisma.. could draw in a very large crowd, and used it for evil purposes exclusively.
Others used it for evil when they weren't using it to communicate the bible..
others, plain didn't do any evil with it, just good.
I wonder how much of it really is connected to our concept of christian gifts of the spirit, or holy spirit.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You're right about the title of the film. History is never written without bias and bias is contributory factor in formulating our opinions. (Note: bias is not necessarily a negative connotation).
Hmm . . . yes I've heard that said. I believe it was a politician who said it. :)Well, methinks we have a difference of opinion. What you see with your own eyes or hear with your own ears may not necessarily be a fact. The mind filters what we see and hear through a prism of our biases. There's no avoiding it. The "fact" that many others share your perspective does not a fact make.
I think you're growing on me.
Oh heck Raf -- I know that. It's not like I just started employing the technique.I didn't declare "it's not there." I think I even conceded that there's a possibility that it is there and asked that you let me know if you find it. If you do -- GREAT! If not, then -- no big deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Raf, is it possible that this statement . . .
. . . is the one you're referring to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
True.
True.True.
And then others used it originally for good and ended up using it for evil.
Well, studies have suggested that many talents we have are inherited. I wouldn't exclude genetics having a major role in these so-called "God-given abilities".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Definitely not. but thanks for checking. I'll try to find it tonight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Ok.
Raf, if it's going to be too much trouble for you don't bother. We can let this one go if you like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Could be. Or these talents were learned from parents during a brief window of opportunity. Human speech is like that. I forget the age range.. but I think children are most susceptible to learning language from six months to maybe five or six years old. If they are deprived, they can never make up the lack of early exposure to language. Feral children (lived in the wild) could never recover from that loss, or become productive in society.
Well, a sucker may be born every minute.. but not everybody can be convincing enough to sell them the Brooklyn bridge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That's probably 'cause even suckers know the Brooklyn bridge isn't worth buying 'cause it's in New York and they say New York although a nice place to visit, no one in their right mind would want to live there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
8 million people are out of their minds?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Oops! You must be a New Yorker. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Born and raised. But South Florida now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Then you must be one New Yorker who came to his senses and got out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Raf, although the exact wording doesn't match yours in regards to the responsibility aspect I was able to find this . . .
. . . which comes closest to your inquiry.Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
At a guess, I think he'd remember if that was it, since we've posted that here before and discussed it.
But he'll have to say for sure if it was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Fine. Then why don't you just keep your trap shut and afford him that opportunity. Dude you're wearing my patience out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ummmm.
Could you repeat the question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Gee, that doesn't sound like the "posting with kindness" that at least is the GOAL of posting here.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/forums.html
"These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area.
All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks...."
I gave a short opinion. Why you perceived some sort of less-than-polite action from it is beyond me.
I perceive you have intelligence and maturity, which you may choose to exercise as you see fit.
I would ask you to so choose.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Raf said
That's what Larry's looking for.
He thinks he may have found it, I disagree and think Raf meant something else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, I was wondering when you were going to get around to actually citing the rules. (Did you happen to notice the full names listed on the header?). Look WW, maybe it's best if we just choose to ignore each other. Since your very first response I sensed a certain degree of -- hmm -- aggression in your replies to me. I don't know if you just don't like having someone disagree with you or if you have some god-like attitude but, let's just make a deal to avoid each other.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That would have been true in SOME of my posts.
Extrapolating that to ALL my posts is jumping to a conclusion.
If you review SOME of my posts to you with a cold, clinical eye, you'd see some of them have been
devoid of "disagree" or "god-like attitude."
I've disagreed with some people here quite verbosely on some threads, and at some times
(and sometimes just on some pages), only to agree with them on other pages,
even to the point of posting specifically to agree with them.
If I thought you were incapable of mature discussion, I would just avoid you.
However, I think I can hold you to the exact same standard to which I hold MYSELF.
(I've mentioned that, perhaps you missed it.)
Personally, I think that indicates treating you as an equal even when we disagree.
Perhaps you see it differently.
I'd rather give this a little time to play out.
If you just can't view my posts without flying into a rage afterwards, then perhaps we can
work something out.
I'm thinking it won't have to come to that.
(Which is my opinion, and I hope not to be proven wrong.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You have chosen to ignore all posts from: WordWolf.
· View this post
· Un-ignore WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
You are simplifying but I found two such acknowledgements one in each of JCOP and one in JCOPS. Here is an exerpt from each:
JCOP:
"Many dedicated people have assisted me in the preparation and publication of this book, a project which I have worked on periodically for two decades. However, in the early 1970's, I solicited the cooperation of Walter J. Cummins, Chairman of our Research department, to check my research thoroughly and critically concerning all the Gospel records starting with six days before the death of Jesus Christ to the day of Pentecost." ....
VP continues by citing the various manuscripts and he specifically names these people as having assisted in the work:
"Walter J. Cummins in Greek, Bernita Jess and Gary R. Curtis in Aramaic, Bo Reahard in Eastern customs, John Crouch in figures of speech, Chip Stansbury in history and documentation, and Michele C. Curtis in organizing and editing the material. Donna Randal, my research secretary for many years, helped immeasurably in evaluating the material and contirbuting to it. Karen W. Martin, my daughter, took primary responsibility for the editing of the manuscript. Rhoda Becker Wierwill, assisted by Joyce Ziegler, Marian Moczydlowski, and others in The Way International's Word Processing department, typed and retyped the manuscript ... Rosalie Rivenbark, Tom Plain and the staff..finalized the manuscript for publication. As is evident, this book is truly the result of a large team effort with years of research, study, checking, and rechecking. Others besides those named above have been consulted and have assisted in the production of this work."
JCOPS:
"This book Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed came into concretion with the assistance of the scholarship of a group of qualified research men and women. In August of 1979 a research team, consisting of Walter J. Cummins, John Crouch, Gary R. Curtis, Michele C. Curtis, Bernita Jess, Karen W. Martin, Donna Randall, Bo Rheahard, and Chip Stansbury, joined me in considering my original research work on the birth of Christ....Karen Wierwille Martin, along with Michele C. Curtis, reworked the research manuscript for its structure and clarity of communication. The manuscript in its numerous drafts was tirelessly retyped by our Word Processing department under the supervision of Joann Herman. Camille Kavasansky and Babara Geer proofread the manuscript...Tom Plain prepared the copy for publicationn...Rosalie F. Rivenbark oversaw production...Emogene Allen prepared (it) for marketing."
These are of course "exerpts" as I do not feel like typing it all out. I am sure that I put in enough of the "acknowledgement" to corroberate Raf's memory. My books are dated JCOP "fourth impression 1981" and JCOPS "second impression 1983".
Larry, I do not know what you might be looking at but perhaps you simply don't have the correct "impression".
love ya
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
My books predate those years.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.