In one thread [on plagiarism I believe] it was said,
“Victor Paul Wierwille used other people’s work to prop up his own research ability, his own wisdom and understanding of God’s Word. He used other people’s work to exalt himself as The Teacher, the Man of God, our father in the Word. He did so knowing that the words “by Victor Paul Wierwille” were a lie."
The accusation of plagiarism is an extremely complicated and baffling proposition the critics are making. The critics want people to believe VPW was a shoddy and incompetent biblical scholar so he “ripped-off” teachings and doctrines from other authors (attempting to show that he plagiarized them word for word) but at the same the critics will not admit the authors he “supposedly stole” from were doctrinally wrong themselves - but rather their teachings and doctrines are biblically accurate and orthodox. Their venom toward VPW has only blinded them to their dichotomy.
Ever wonder why the same critics don’t bother to declare the original gospel writers of holy writ were incompetent and likewise failed to properly document their sources? Now that would be a more valid argument rather then bothering with the writings of VPW. God forbid one should attack an original writer of the holy writ though, as today it’s only plausible and feasible to do so with a contemporary commentator on the scriptures.
Take for example John’s bold declaration of Jesus’ work and ministry recorded in the gospel of John 21:25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Let’s consider these facts. Jesus could only be at one place at one time. Likewise he could only reach, teach and minister to a limited number of people considering he had to travel by boat or by donkey or had to walk in order to reach them. His life and ministry was cut short and was extremely brief. Just with those facts about Jesus’ life to work from, John must have been an extremely lazy and incompetent gospel writer not to properly document and record the “many things” Jesus had done. When one considers the brevity of Jesus’ life, it’s hard to assume even a short book could have ever been written about the “many things” Jesus did.
OK then. John was not only incompetent in the proper documenting and recording of the works of his Lord Jesus, but we also see he had the audacity to exaggerate the facts and boldly declare the WHOLE WORLD could not contain the books that should be written! Imagine that! What total and complete incompetence, as well as arrogance on top of it from one of Jesus’ own disciples!
I can’t speak for you, but it’s extremely difficult for me to believe Christianity is in a pickle and VPW’s character as a Christian is invalid because he failed to properly cite his sources. Why don’t the critics consider that Jesus’ own disciples couldn’t properly record and document the facts as they were? Oh, they can’t do that - that would be blasphemous you know. Apparently Jesus’ own disciples not only failed to properly record and document the facts as they were, but they also had the audacity to exaggerate the facts as they were! Is that what you believe about the disciples of the Lord? If so, then one has no justification to criticize VPW for improper documentation, although apparently many of the facts the critics make regarding VPW’s character are certainly exaggerated. (Perhaps I should copyright this before a “wolf” comes along to chop it up and plagiarize it without my knowledge and permission. After all, I have my rights to protect too - don’t you know.)
As to the title of this thread (who you are is more important than what you know), why is it one at the exclusion of the other? It says in Corinthians that knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. We all have both on our 'menus'.
WW I wasn't accusing Moses of plagiarism; back in his time it wasn't possible to mass produce written works and get a copyright was it? I was showing that an accusation of plagiarism against VP is as ridiculous as one against Moses. Solomon copied down much of Proverbs. Those proverbs were known to that part of the world for years before Solomon's time. Moses, being both a grandson AND a great grandson of Levi could very well have had access to handed down writings not seen by the average Israelite. SOMEBODY informed him about his heritage for him to up and kill that Egyptian who abused an Israelite. That doesn't mean God didn't work with him to write/compile Genesis through Deuteronomy. Still God breathed.
quote: Seriously, though, Johniam, you're totally discounting anything JJ says merely because he's a trinitarian?
Do you think that PFAL is perfect and solid material? That there's no errors in PFAL at all?
VP said during AC '79 that anyone who is ADAMANT about the trinity is possessed. He didn't say anyone who believes in the trinity, just adamant about it. I have witnessed to many trinitarians and some of them, when they realize that I don't believe Jesus is God, become very unpleasant. Yet, I've posted before of my experience in a Presbyterian church during the late 90s where a minister's sermon included that verse in Luke where Jesus prayed to God asking Him "not my will but thine be done"; the minister used that as an example that even Jesus was hesitant to trust and obey God. Now that minister is trinitarian, but somewhere in his mind he knows that Jesus was tempted like the rest of us mortals and that he wasn't really God the creator of heaven and earth.
So, to answer your questions; yes, I'm prejudiced against JJ. I've read enough of his stuff that I think he DOES have venom toward VP that clouds his judgement. Not simply because he's trinitarian, but as I said he's a SERIOUS trinitarian and the venom is a symptom of it, IMO. And, no not everything in PFAL is 100% right on, but it deserves a lot more appreciation than to just be written off as "deception".
well that is interesting , consider: what you know has alot to do with who you are. that is a fact of life.
also this knowing of ones self is a form of self actualization which is hardly ever realialized for most individuals. reality is often a perspective given formed by again what we know as truth.
we become who we are.. we change often throughout a life time. and why? because of what "we Know" or in the least what we think we know for that time of life.
no one is born who they are, people BECOME who they are because of what they know about life.
I am guessing he is talking about bible facts and the type of life ones lives...
Well to that I say.. honesty is often in the eye of who is spinning for what purpose.
how many people do I know who hold the bible as a standard for life and then we find out on the sly the little known lifestyle or fact that completely blows THAT appearance out of the water?
plenty. over and voer again, and it seems the bible is used as a coverup to something that they may not want anyone to know about. so you can KNOW the bible verses plenty and preach them till the cows come home doesnt mean in the very least that has anything to do with how you behave.
After reading this thread, it occurs to me that filling one's head with "knowledge" from someone with a proven lack of "character," (and holding onto it as precious treasure, instead of the garbage it is) can really affect "who I am."
The accusation of plagiarism is an extremely complicated and baffling proposition the critics are making.
[No, it's very simple. Middle-school students understand it.
Even supporters of vpw can understand it.
Taking the works of others and pretending you wrote them is plagiarism.
Using their work without giving them credit for their work is plagiarism.
If you take the material, the exact words, the structure or the subjects,
and don't cite your source-thus giving them credit- that's plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a crime.
It's legally wrong, morally wrong, ethically wrong, and criminally actionable.
It shows a lack of respect toward those you plagiarized (you stole their credit),
and your audience (you insult them and rob them of sources).]
The critics want people to believe VPW was a shoddy and incompetent biblical scholar so he “ripped-off” teachings and doctrines from other authors (attempting to show that he plagiarized them word for word) but at the same the critics will not admit the authors he “supposedly stole” from were doctrinally wrong themselves - but rather their teachings and doctrines are biblically accurate and orthodox. Their venom toward VPW has only blinded them to their dichotomy.
[Not at all.
The rightness or wrongness of the material a plagiarist stole is irrelevant to the plagiarism.
Someone who plagiarized lcm's stupidest rants, or a KKK Grand Wizard's racist spew,
or "Dick and Jane at the Beach" is as wrong a plagiarist as someone who stole from
the greatest works of Western Literature, or Sun Tzu's "the Art of War".
vpw stole from the works of others.
In some cases, he plagiarized word for word,
in others, he plagiarized paragraph for paragraph, or concept for concept.
This lack of understanding of how plagiarism isn't negated if you shuffle the words
around or paraphrase the original book is sad, since it's been explained over and over
in plain English, and is still false.
He has been demonstrated-beyond a REASONABLE doubt- to have done so with
Stiles, with Bullinger, with Leonard.
Those who don't acknowledge that-or are afraid to look at the side-by-side comparisons
of the original work and the plagiarized work- do not invalidate the successful
proof of same.
And repeating one's previous invalidated claims-exposing one's lack of understanding
of what's already been disproven- STILL does not change one's claims into truth.
That having been said, it's been stated A NUMBER OF TIMES (which WTH has missed, of
course, being an indifferent searcher before making his OWN claims) that there's no
guarantee the original works were accurate. The simplest example was Bullinger's
own error concerning the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God.
Biblically, the usages of the 2 terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.
However, Bullinger believed they were NOT, and vpw plagiarized his explanation.
vpw was wrong to plagiarize, and was doctrinally wrong when he printed this
PARTICULAR error. I suspect vpw's own laziness in checking the work, or lack of
skill in checking the differences (or possibly both), led him to support this error.
It takes no great skill to look up all the usages of both and compare them-
and we have (although cg beat us all to that one, AFAIK.)
Now, other subjects, there's doctrinal disagreements as to many of them-
as to what is error and what is not. Few people-and none I'm aware of-
ever claim Bullinger, Stiles or Leonard are inerrant.
Such a claim originates with WTH's post, as he mischaracterizes those he disagrees
with. Most people can recognize a Strawman Argument when they see it.
Here's one now.
Also, just because vpw was shoddy and incompetent as a Bible scholar is no guarantee
that THIS was his motive for plagiarizing the works of others. We know he studied
HOMILETICS (how to give a sermon) rather than any Bible-related subject, but that's
no guarantee that was the sole reason he did this. More likely, he took works he thought
were superior to his own-and would not be recognized- and put his own name on them
(pausing to put them in books with his name on them) in order to put forth that himself
was some great one, and wanted others to believe that he had a unique connection to
God Almighty and be a superior source for Godly material than any other the person has
heard of. This succeeded beyond his wildest expectations, as some people STILL believe
this one.
That all this has been discussed has been missed by WTH.
Possibly, this is because his venom towards those who've examined "vpw's books"
has only blinded him to the discussions. ]
Ever wonder why the same critics don’t bother to declare the original gospel writers of holy writ were incompetent and likewise failed to properly document their sources? Now that would be a more valid argument rather then bothering with the writings of VPW.
[Ever wonder why someone who believes the Bible is The Word of God would actually try
to invalidate Holy Scripture in an attempt to draw attention from the plagiarism of a man?
The "writings" of vpw have been shown-to any REASONABLE standard- to have been plagiarized.
Rather than admit this, they'd rather attack the Holy Bible instead, considering invalidating
God's Word rather than admitting something that is NOT God's Word is not actually
God's Word. ]
God forbid one should attack an original writer of the holy writ though, as today it’s only plausible and feasible to do so with a contemporary commentator on the scriptures.
[God forbid I should ever declare "the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God Almighty" in one breath and
hypocritically attempt to invalidate it in the next breath.
May my own honesty forbid me from calling a plagiarist a "commentator", or a homileticist a
"researcher", or a man called to take down Holy Scripture a "thief".]
Take for example John’s bold declaration of Jesus’ work and ministry recorded in the gospel of John 21:25.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Let’s consider these facts. Jesus could only be at one place at one time. Likewise he could only reach, teach and minister to a limited number of people considering he had to travel by boat or by donkey or had to walk in order to reach them. His life and ministry was cut short and was extremely brief. Just with those facts about Jesus’ life to work from, John must have been an extremely lazy and incompetent gospel writer not to properly document and record the “many things” Jesus had done. When one considers the brevity of Jesus’ life, it’s hard to assume even a short book could have ever been written about the “many things” Jesus did.
[Or, that which was written was determined by God (which one believes if one calls the Bible
"the Word of God", and God Almighty determined that those specific accounts were related,
and that because its internal testimony of itself is true.
That would mean John 20:30-31 was true.
30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Amazing how someone can believe The Bible is The Word of God, and not only skip
one chapter to attempt to invalidate its testimony based on the NEXT chapter,
but also attempt to invalidate it altogether!
Think God Almighty appreciates this?
Can you face the man in the mirror like this?]
OK then. John was not only incompetent in the proper documenting and recording of the works of his Lord Jesus, but we also see he had the audacity to exaggerate the facts and boldly declare the WHOLE WORLD could not contain the books that should be written! Imagine that! What total and complete incompetence, as well as arrogance on top of it from one of Jesus’ own disciples!
[Or John wrote what he was told to-and no more.
Further, if he himself "supposes" something, he appears to be STATING HIS OPINION for a moment.
After all "I suppose" does not appear all over Scripture, but it appears THERE.
Seems hyperbole to me, which vpw students consider a legitimate figure of speech, one of
212 (not the 217 that Bullinger listed, but the 212 mentioned in pfal, with over 40 under 1 heading)
that they consider legitimate components in The Word of God.
Since any reader can easily tell this is not literally true to fact (120 years on the earth could have
been covered by books completely filling, say, Jerusalem or Ephesus, and this was far, far short
of that), it should be obvious this fits the very definition of a figure of speech-as in
"that which is not literally true to fact", a working definition any twi'er should know in his sleep.
And yet, one can't recognize that, and seizes on it as an excuse to attack Holy Scripture,
an act vpw himself roundly condemned. Imagine that! What total and complete incompetence,
as well as arrogance to claim to know better than God Almighty!]
I can’t speak for you, but it’s extremely difficult for me to believe Christianity is in a pickle and VPW’s character as a Christian is invalid because he failed to properly cite his sources.
[Christianity is doing as well as can be expected-far better than vpw apologists ever claim.
vpw's character as a Christian is invalidated because he voluntarily chose to plagiarize-
which means he knew he was supposed to properly cite his sources.
vpw's character as a Christian is also invalidated by the rapes, druggings, and other
things he did as well, but you wanted to discuss his plagiarism.]
Why don’t the critics consider that Jesus’ own disciples couldn’t properly record and document the facts as they were?
[Answered-see above. It was properly recorded and documented to the satisfaction of the
standards of God Almighty.]
Oh, they can’t do that - that would be blasphemous you know.
[sloppy research, in this case, as well as blasphemy.
But some vpw apologists don't let blasphemy stop them in attempting to excuse their
favourite criminal of his crimes.]
Apparently Jesus’ own disciples not only failed to properly record and document the facts as they were, but they also had the audacity to exaggerate the facts as they were!
[Answered-see above. This claim is without merit.]
Is that what you believe about the disciples of the Lord?
[Despite your ill-documented claim, no.
vpw didn't believe it either, and taught otherwise.
So you're contradicting vpw's own teachings in a sloppy attempt to vindicate his crimes.]
If so, then one has no justification to criticize VPW for improper documentation, although apparently many of the facts the critics make regarding VPW’s character are certainly exaggerated. (Perhaps I should copyright this before a “wolf” comes along to chop it up and plagiarize it without my knowledge and permission. After all, I have my rights to protect too - don’t you know.)
[A) We never made such a claim-you did, so that's a standard we cannot be held to (as in your "if so"-it is NOT so.)
B) vpw was demonstrated to have refused to document properly,
which has been shown with side-by-side comparisons with books vpw has been shown
to be VERY familiar with, so such claims have been DOCUMENTED, not
"exagerrated", and certainly not "certainly exagerrated."
(Then again, when blasphemy is not enough to stop someone, what can a little thing
like conventional, everyday lying do? One's conscience is too sluggish to react.)
C) I always cite my sources, and those looking at the top of my post can see the poster and the
exact post from which it was taken. Thus, so long as I show the original, I can comment
freely and criticize freely. I respect the rights of those who blaspheme and lie as much as I
respect the rights of those who seek to serve God in a fashion HE specified, and as much as
I respect the rights of those who completely reject the Bible and God.
I learned that sort of thing from God Almighty, who made the rain to fall on both the just
I can't speak for you, but it's extremely difficult for me to believe Christianity is in a pickle and VPW's character as a Christian is invalid because he failed to properly cite his sources. Why don't the critics consider that Jesus' own disciples couldn't properly record and document the facts as they were? Oh, they can't do that - that would be blasphemous you know. Apparently Jesus' own disciples not only failed to properly record and document the facts as they were, but they also had the audacity to exaggerate the facts as they were! Is that what you believe about the disciples of the Lord? If so, then one has no justification to criticize VPW for improper documentation, although apparently many of the facts the critics make regarding VPW's character are certainly exaggerated. (Perhaps I should copyright this before a "wolf" comes along to chop it up and plagiarize it without my knowledge and permission. After all, I have my rights to protect too - don't you know.)
I don't think Christianity is in a pickle – just Wierwille-anity – a religion based on VPW – a person with some serious character flaws…for instance: Plagiarism is NOT negligence – failing to cite sources. It is STEALING the product of someone else's work and LYING by representing it as the fruit of one's own efforts…How you can equate the Holy Spirit's guidance to biblical writers in the editing process of Scripture – with plagiarism is beyond me!
Perhaps if you spent more time reviewing the facts and less time revering VPW you might get yourself out of that Wierwille-anity pickle. While you're at it – maybe spend a little more time looking into how the Bible was written instead of how you think VPW wrote his books.
VP said during AC '79 that anyone who is ADAMANT about the trinity is possessed. He didn't say anyone who believes in the trinity, just adamant about it. I have witnessed to many trinitarians and some of them, when they realize that I don't believe Jesus is God, become very unpleasant.
Gonna check if someone has fur inside their skin to prove they turn into a wolf?
Check for moles as proof of a bargain with the devil?]
Yet, I've posted before of my experience in a Presbyterian church during the late 90s where a minister's sermon included that verse in Luke where Jesus prayed to God asking Him "not my will but thine be done"; the minister used that as an example that even Jesus was hesitant to trust and obey God. Now that minister is trinitarian, but somewhere in his mind he knows that Jesus was tempted like the rest of us mortals and that he wasn't really God the creator of heaven and earth.
[Now you can read his mind. Wowzer.
I might have said something like "he might be more ready to consider that maybe Jesus
isn't (not wasn't) God the Creator of Heaven and Earth."
But you know he partly doesn't believe it, somewhere in his head.
Amazing.
If you can do that face-to-face, you'd clean up on Jeopardy!, Millionaire, and Weakest Link.]
So, to answer your questions; yes, I'm prejudiced against JJ. I've read enough of his stuff that I think he DOES have venom toward VP that clouds his judgement. Not simply because he's trinitarian, but as I said he's a SERIOUS trinitarian and the venom is a symptom of it, IMO.
[i appreciate your candor.
Strong convictions means "possessed", and "emotional against vp" means "bad judgement".
Evidence, apparently, is irrelevant.
Me, I would think that a laundry list of the crimes of a criminal would be WORTH
some emotion, but I don't speak for everyone.]
And, no not everything in PFAL is 100% right on, but it deserves a lot more appreciation than to just be written off as "deception".
[someone said it was all "written off as 'deception''? Who claimed that one.
Most claim its contents are SUSPECT because they were assembled and presented
deceptively. A few people discount all Christian endeavours, and thus pfal gets
dismissed with all other Christians, but that's hardly the popular position here.
After reading this thread, it occurs to me that filling one's head with "knowledge" from someone with a proven lack of "character," (and holding onto it as precious treasure, instead of the garbage it is) can really affect "who I am."
Bingo.
We've seen a sermon while hearing one, on this thread.
Johniam, I'm speechless. You really believe that statement by vee pee? You honestly believe that JJ is possessed because he's a trinitarian? You comment that a pedophile can get someone born again, but refuse to even consider that JJ may actually have some valid points? You choose the knowledge of vee pee over the character of others with established integrity?
I'm really sad for you. :( Life is so much sweeter when one can live without all the blinders, constraints and judgments vee pee tried to teach us.
After reading this thread, it occurs to me that filling one's head with "knowledge" from someone with a proven lack of "character," (and holding onto it as precious treasure, instead of the garbage it is) can really affect "who I am."
I agree.
and that is why it is so very difficult to be free of this whole lifestyle involved in this stuff for me.
I often wonder who I would have been if i had not become so very influenced at one time, in high school i smoked pot , then when i grew up some and took on responsibilities of a grown up I just stopped, plenty of folks did keep smoking pot and I had no problem not seeking them out or wondering what they were doing now , but they did influence me at one time.
Yet this cult like reading and the tapes and the leaders are much different to shake , mentaly and emotionly it is a deeper thing.
why?
because the convincing it was all about God and his will mixed in the mess takes it off the balance doesnt it?
where in the line in all this doctrine right and wrong?
depends on how you spin it it isnt a balck and white thing and I believe only God decides what is an idol in anyones life.
ya know on a scale if it or is Jesus christ or a VPW type guy i would take my chances just on the bible alone i do not see any vpw written about or curious / controversal question on how to worhship him.
Just another thought, but I don't think Jesus dismissed anyone, and what they said, just because of gender, ethinicity, or theology, or brand of jeans they wore. If anybody needs a bible example, John 4 comes to mind, and his conversation with the Samaritan woman.
It just never ceases to amaze me how some of us exes can hang onto the words and musings of a someone we deemed a MOG, who treated people shamelessly, and then blow off a person of experience and practice in really caring for people.
I guess some people really do think that "knowledge" is more important than "character," Truly astonishing.
The accusation of plagiarism is an extremely complicated and baffling proposition the critics are making.
No, it's not very complicated at all, and it's only baffling to those who don't want to belioeve the evidense that's set before them
The critics want people to believe VPW was a shoddy and incompetent biblical scholar so he “ripped-off” teachings and doctrines from other authors
Actually, those are two different subjects. His shoddy researc had little to do with his plagiarism
(attempting to show that he plagiarized them word for word)
Attempting successfully. Some of what Wierwille wrote was word-for-word plagiarism, some was not
but at the same the critics will not admit the authors he “supposedly stole” from were doctrinally wrong themselves - but rather their teachings and doctrines are biblically accurate and orthodox.
There is a range of opinions regarding the correctness of those Wierwille stole from. Some are inconsistant, most are consistant in their criticism.
Their venom toward VPW has only blinded them to their dichotomy.
In most cases there is no dichotomy, you assume that the reason that there is criticism is venom. Not so
Ever wonder why the same critics don’t bother to declare the original gospel writers of holy writ were incompetent and likewise failed to properly document their sources?
Well, for one, the bible says about itself that it is inspired by God, the writers are making no claims of originality or true authorship.
Now that would be a more valid argument rather then bothering with the writings of VPW.
Some of do question the validity of the bible, I'll leave the defense to the Christians, but we're discussing Wierwille, not the gospel writers
God forbid one should attack an original writer of the holy writ though, as today it’s only plausible and feasible to do so with a contemporary commentator on the scriptures.
Sounds like a classic false dilemma. Wierwille only did what the gospel writers did, they weren't plagiarists, therefore Wierwille wasn't. (Maybe it's a false premise too)
Take for example John’s bold declaration of Jesus’ work and ministry recorded in the gospel of John 21:25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Let’s consider these facts. Jesus could only be at one place at one time. Likewise he could only reach, teach and minister to a limited number of people considering he had to travel by boat or by donkey or had to walk in order to reach them. His life and ministry was cut short and was extremely brief. Just with those facts about Jesus’ life to work from, John must have been an extremely lazy and incompetent gospel writer not to properly document and record the “many things” Jesus had done. When one considers the brevity of Jesus’ life, it’s hard to assume even a short book could have ever been written about the “many things” Jesus did.
OK then. John was not only incompetent in the proper documenting and recording of the works of his Lord Jesus, but we also see he had the audacity to exaggerate the facts and boldly declare the WHOLE WORLD could not contain the books that should be written! Imagine that! What total and complete incompetence, as well as arrogance on top of it from one of Jesus’ own disciples!
Only an idiot would say that the gospel writer was incompetant because he exaggerated. Hyperbole is a legitimate figure of speech. But you knew that, right? Again, you're framing the argument in ridiculous and unreasonable terms
I can’t speak for you, but it’s extremely difficult for me to believe Christianity is in a pickle and VPW’s character as a Christian is invalid because he failed to properly cite his sources.
Who said that Christianity is "in a pickle" because of anything Wierwille did? You're the one who set up the false dilemma
Why don’t the critics consider that Jesus’ own disciples couldn’t properly record and document the facts as they were?
Well, I consider that, but I don't think you're really suggesting it though, it's just a distraction to show how your MOG didn't really do anything wrong.
(Perhaps I should copyright this before a “wolf” comes along to chop it up and plagiarize it without my knowledge and permission. After all, I have my rights to protect too - don’t you know.)
Who you are influences how you process what you know.
For those who chant the "Wierwille's character doesn't affect the TRUTH he taught" mantra:
Every single person who made it though PFAL and stayed active for even a short period of time did so because they believed that Wierwille was telling the truth in PFAL. Why did we believe this? Because we did our own research? Usually because we took Wierwille's word for most of what he said, and the things that we "investigated" on our own we did using assumptions and premises that we accepted from Wierwille. No, we believed what was in PFAL largely because we decided that Wierwille was trustworthy and that he knew what he was talking about. He convinced us of it himself.
If we had known from the start that the man was a liar, if we knew that he sexually abused young women, if we knew all the negative "character flaws", would we have even listened to anything he said?
It's only in retrospect, in hindsight, that we try to justify believing what we were taught.
This is not to say that everything that he taught was wrong. But teachings such as "every woman in the kingdom belongs to the King", the whole concept of the MOG, unquestioned following of leadership were open doors for abuse. The framework of his interpretation necessarily being the only correct one fed into his apparent need for adulation.
It doesn't matter how full your head is with knowledge, with facts, with TRUTH, if your heart is rotten, than what does it matter?
Just another thought, but I don't think Jesus dismissed anyone, and what they said, just because of gender, ethinicity, or theology, or brand of jeans they wore. If anybody needs a bible example, John 4 comes to mind, and his conversation with the Samaritan woman.
It just never ceases to amaze me how some of us exes can hang onto the words and musings of a someone we deemed a MOG, who treated people shamelessly, and then blow off a person of experience and practice in really caring for people.
I guess some people really do think that "knowledge" is more important than "character," Truly astonishing.
This term "character" you use is subjective isnt it ex10?
Each trait one assigns to another is frankly a perspective from where they are with that person at that ime.
for example the second wife may think her man is golden while the first wife may have some different facts of the "Character" of the same man!
At one time John Lynn thought Mark and Karens employment at his ministry was a very good thing , today right after he gets sued from these loved and trusted friends , the character of those same people will be different in his perspective.
character is indeed subjective to opinion of those assigning the judgement at the time.
so Knowledge is more practical in serving, if we know a person is a thief, has been in the past, and they move and suddenly, homes are being robbed , we Do go with the knowledge of his/her behaviours.. Yet he/she was such a nice guy , always sweet and wiling to help anyone in the neighborhood.
Sexual preditors of children often become "pillars of the community" encased in causes of good for children and the good will of the enitre community. family men, and often determined above any critical assessment because of their "character", and servant attitude towards others.
how many times are we shocked at the news of some horrid crimes from a family member or a nighbor or a co-worker when we thought he was such a great girl or guy and never would have thought he was capable of such crimes or behaviours?
character is subjective ex10, and at what point to do cease "people pleasing" with this attitude and become honest , and be willing to listen to the facts that people have knowledge of ?
spin and con is easy to do and the ploy of being victim or a misunderstanding has a long standing position of allowing denial of what isnt popular to hear, from those who have knowledge that doesnt fit in with your person assessment of a person "character".
Wierwille did good things too, so he had good character.
IF you say that he had an evil character because of his evil works, then I can say he had good character, because of his good works. We're even.
So, the times he spoke forth the word and taught the word with believing, he was a man of good character.
Some people will never get a clue OM. No true critic of VPW will ever begin to appreciate that fact, anymore than the true pessimist who insists that the glass half full of water is still empty.
Wierwille did good things too, so he had good character.
Capone did a few good things too. He had a good character too, when he wasn't so busy robbing, shooting, and otherwise causing mayhem.
Same for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin.. can't come to power without kissing a FEW babies.. poor babies.. ptooie
So, the times he spoke forth the word and taught the word with believing, he was a man of good character.
I wouldn't exactly say it that way. The times he spoke forth the word and taught the word with believing(and I REALLY can't quite swallow that) he was PRETENDING to be a man of good character, a man which he knew he SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
14
8
11
Popular Days
Jan 18
18
Jan 17
15
Jan 19
14
Jan 22
13
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 8 posts
Oakspear 14 posts
Ham 8 posts
T-Bone 11 posts
Popular Days
Jan 18 2007
18 posts
Jan 17 2007
15 posts
Jan 19 2007
14 posts
Jan 22 2007
13 posts
What The Hey
In one thread [on plagiarism I believe] it was said,
The accusation of plagiarism is an extremely complicated and baffling proposition the critics are making. The critics want people to believe VPW was a shoddy and incompetent biblical scholar so he “ripped-off” teachings and doctrines from other authors (attempting to show that he plagiarized them word for word) but at the same the critics will not admit the authors he “supposedly stole” from were doctrinally wrong themselves - but rather their teachings and doctrines are biblically accurate and orthodox. Their venom toward VPW has only blinded them to their dichotomy.
Ever wonder why the same critics don’t bother to declare the original gospel writers of holy writ were incompetent and likewise failed to properly document their sources? Now that would be a more valid argument rather then bothering with the writings of VPW. God forbid one should attack an original writer of the holy writ though, as today it’s only plausible and feasible to do so with a contemporary commentator on the scriptures.
Take for example John’s bold declaration of Jesus’ work and ministry recorded in the gospel of John 21:25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Let’s consider these facts. Jesus could only be at one place at one time. Likewise he could only reach, teach and minister to a limited number of people considering he had to travel by boat or by donkey or had to walk in order to reach them. His life and ministry was cut short and was extremely brief. Just with those facts about Jesus’ life to work from, John must have been an extremely lazy and incompetent gospel writer not to properly document and record the “many things” Jesus had done. When one considers the brevity of Jesus’ life, it’s hard to assume even a short book could have ever been written about the “many things” Jesus did.
OK then. John was not only incompetent in the proper documenting and recording of the works of his Lord Jesus, but we also see he had the audacity to exaggerate the facts and boldly declare the WHOLE WORLD could not contain the books that should be written! Imagine that! What total and complete incompetence, as well as arrogance on top of it from one of Jesus’ own disciples!
I can’t speak for you, but it’s extremely difficult for me to believe Christianity is in a pickle and VPW’s character as a Christian is invalid because he failed to properly cite his sources. Why don’t the critics consider that Jesus’ own disciples couldn’t properly record and document the facts as they were? Oh, they can’t do that - that would be blasphemous you know. Apparently Jesus’ own disciples not only failed to properly record and document the facts as they were, but they also had the audacity to exaggerate the facts as they were! Is that what you believe about the disciples of the Lord? If so, then one has no justification to criticize VPW for improper documentation, although apparently many of the facts the critics make regarding VPW’s character are certainly exaggerated. (Perhaps I should copyright this before a “wolf” comes along to chop it up and plagiarize it without my knowledge and permission. After all, I have my rights to protect too - don’t you know.)
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
As to the title of this thread (who you are is more important than what you know), why is it one at the exclusion of the other? It says in Corinthians that knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. We all have both on our 'menus'.
WW I wasn't accusing Moses of plagiarism; back in his time it wasn't possible to mass produce written works and get a copyright was it? I was showing that an accusation of plagiarism against VP is as ridiculous as one against Moses. Solomon copied down much of Proverbs. Those proverbs were known to that part of the world for years before Solomon's time. Moses, being both a grandson AND a great grandson of Levi could very well have had access to handed down writings not seen by the average Israelite. SOMEBODY informed him about his heritage for him to up and kill that Egyptian who abused an Israelite. That doesn't mean God didn't work with him to write/compile Genesis through Deuteronomy. Still God breathed.
quote: Seriously, though, Johniam, you're totally discounting anything JJ says merely because he's a trinitarian?
Do you think that PFAL is perfect and solid material? That there's no errors in PFAL at all?
VP said during AC '79 that anyone who is ADAMANT about the trinity is possessed. He didn't say anyone who believes in the trinity, just adamant about it. I have witnessed to many trinitarians and some of them, when they realize that I don't believe Jesus is God, become very unpleasant. Yet, I've posted before of my experience in a Presbyterian church during the late 90s where a minister's sermon included that verse in Luke where Jesus prayed to God asking Him "not my will but thine be done"; the minister used that as an example that even Jesus was hesitant to trust and obey God. Now that minister is trinitarian, but somewhere in his mind he knows that Jesus was tempted like the rest of us mortals and that he wasn't really God the creator of heaven and earth.
So, to answer your questions; yes, I'm prejudiced against JJ. I've read enough of his stuff that I think he DOES have venom toward VP that clouds his judgement. Not simply because he's trinitarian, but as I said he's a SERIOUS trinitarian and the venom is a symptom of it, IMO. And, no not everything in PFAL is 100% right on, but it deserves a lot more appreciation than to just be written off as "deception".
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
So therefore it must be true?
How did this thread get derailed from "who you are", to attacks on Juedes, plagiarism and the trinity?
'Who are" these people?
Id rather see a sermon than hear one any day
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: How did this thread get derailed from "who you are", to attacks on Juedes, plagiarism and the trinity?
The thread used Juedes as a role model for who to be. I wanted to explore that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Who you are is more important than what you know
well that is interesting , consider: what you know has alot to do with who you are. that is a fact of life.
also this knowing of ones self is a form of self actualization which is hardly ever realialized for most individuals. reality is often a perspective given formed by again what we know as truth.
we become who we are.. we change often throughout a life time. and why? because of what "we Know" or in the least what we think we know for that time of life.
no one is born who they are, people BECOME who they are because of what they know about life.
I am guessing he is talking about bible facts and the type of life ones lives...
Well to that I say.. honesty is often in the eye of who is spinning for what purpose.
how many people do I know who hold the bible as a standard for life and then we find out on the sly the little known lifestyle or fact that completely blows THAT appearance out of the water?
plenty. over and voer again, and it seems the bible is used as a coverup to something that they may not want anyone to know about. so you can KNOW the bible verses plenty and preach them till the cows come home doesnt mean in the very least that has anything to do with how you behave.
and truly how we behave is who we are .
even if you never admit it.
Edited by pondLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
And.....what did VP teach us about CANCER..?????
And.....didn't VP die of CANCER..?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
After reading this thread, it occurs to me that filling one's head with "knowledge" from someone with a proven lack of "character," (and holding onto it as precious treasure, instead of the garbage it is) can really affect "who I am."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Even a pedophile catholic priest can get somebody born again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface and brackets again.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don't think Christianity is in a pickle – just Wierwille-anity – a religion based on VPW – a person with some serious character flaws…for instance: Plagiarism is NOT negligence – failing to cite sources. It is STEALING the product of someone else's work and LYING by representing it as the fruit of one's own efforts…How you can equate the Holy Spirit's guidance to biblical writers in the editing process of Scripture – with plagiarism is beyond me!
Perhaps if you spent more time reviewing the facts and less time revering VPW you might get yourself out of that Wierwille-anity pickle. While you're at it – maybe spend a little more time looking into how the Bible was written instead of how you think VPW wrote his books.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[so strong-convictions=possessed. What's next, witch-hunts?
Gonna check if someone has fur inside their skin to prove they turn into a wolf?
Check for moles as proof of a bargain with the devil?]
[Now you can read his mind. Wowzer.I might have said something like "he might be more ready to consider that maybe Jesus
isn't (not wasn't) God the Creator of Heaven and Earth."
But you know he partly doesn't believe it, somewhere in his head.
Amazing.
If you can do that face-to-face, you'd clean up on Jeopardy!, Millionaire, and Weakest Link.]
[i appreciate your candor.
Strong convictions means "possessed", and "emotional against vp" means "bad judgement".
Evidence, apparently, is irrelevant.
Me, I would think that a laundry list of the crimes of a criminal would be WORTH
some emotion, but I don't speak for everyone.]
[someone said it was all "written off as 'deception''? Who claimed that one.
Most claim its contents are SUSPECT because they were assembled and presented
deceptively. A few people discount all Christian endeavours, and thus pfal gets
dismissed with all other Christians, but that's hardly the popular position here.
Who's been posting this, John?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
...would that be a case of wrong seed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Bingo.
We've seen a sermon while hearing one, on this thread.
20 points for ex10.
You win the internet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
WTH, if you want to defend vee pee's plagiarism, we already have at least two active threads on the subject.
JE Stiles
Plagiarism 101
Johniam, I'm speechless. You really believe that statement by vee pee? You honestly believe that JJ is possessed because he's a trinitarian? You comment that a pedophile can get someone born again, but refuse to even consider that JJ may actually have some valid points? You choose the knowledge of vee pee over the character of others with established integrity?
I'm really sad for you. :( Life is so much sweeter when one can live without all the blinders, constraints and judgments vee pee tried to teach us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
I agree.
and that is why it is so very difficult to be free of this whole lifestyle involved in this stuff for me.
I often wonder who I would have been if i had not become so very influenced at one time, in high school i smoked pot , then when i grew up some and took on responsibilities of a grown up I just stopped, plenty of folks did keep smoking pot and I had no problem not seeking them out or wondering what they were doing now , but they did influence me at one time.
Yet this cult like reading and the tapes and the leaders are much different to shake , mentaly and emotionly it is a deeper thing.
why?
because the convincing it was all about God and his will mixed in the mess takes it off the balance doesnt it?
strange life indeed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
this whole trinity subject is just hysterical!
CES also pray to jesus .
where in the line in all this doctrine right and wrong?
depends on how you spin it it isnt a balck and white thing and I believe only God decides what is an idol in anyones life.
ya know on a scale if it or is Jesus christ or a VPW type guy i would take my chances just on the bible alone i do not see any vpw written about or curious / controversal question on how to worhship him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Just another thought, but I don't think Jesus dismissed anyone, and what they said, just because of gender, ethinicity, or theology, or brand of jeans they wore. If anybody needs a bible example, John 4 comes to mind, and his conversation with the Samaritan woman.
It just never ceases to amaze me how some of us exes can hang onto the words and musings of a someone we deemed a MOG, who treated people shamelessly, and then blow off a person of experience and practice in really caring for people.
I guess some people really do think that "knowledge" is more important than "character," Truly astonishing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Who you are influences how you process what you know.
For those who chant the "Wierwille's character doesn't affect the TRUTH he taught" mantra:
Every single person who made it though PFAL and stayed active for even a short period of time did so because they believed that Wierwille was telling the truth in PFAL. Why did we believe this? Because we did our own research? Usually because we took Wierwille's word for most of what he said, and the things that we "investigated" on our own we did using assumptions and premises that we accepted from Wierwille. No, we believed what was in PFAL largely because we decided that Wierwille was trustworthy and that he knew what he was talking about. He convinced us of it himself.
If we had known from the start that the man was a liar, if we knew that he sexually abused young women, if we knew all the negative "character flaws", would we have even listened to anything he said?
It's only in retrospect, in hindsight, that we try to justify believing what we were taught.
This is not to say that everything that he taught was wrong. But teachings such as "every woman in the kingdom belongs to the King", the whole concept of the MOG, unquestioned following of leadership were open doors for abuse. The framework of his interpretation necessarily being the only correct one fed into his apparent need for adulation.
It doesn't matter how full your head is with knowledge, with facts, with TRUTH, if your heart is rotten, than what does it matter?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Oak, that's awesome!!! Gem-worthy! Thank you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Actually that's not quite right.
Wierwille did good things too, so he had good character.
IF you say that he had an evil character because of his evil works, then I can say he had good character, because of his good works. We're even.
So, the times he spoke forth the word and taught the word with believing, he was a man of good character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
This term "character" you use is subjective isnt it ex10?
Each trait one assigns to another is frankly a perspective from where they are with that person at that ime.
for example the second wife may think her man is golden while the first wife may have some different facts of the "Character" of the same man!
At one time John Lynn thought Mark and Karens employment at his ministry was a very good thing , today right after he gets sued from these loved and trusted friends , the character of those same people will be different in his perspective.
character is indeed subjective to opinion of those assigning the judgement at the time.
so Knowledge is more practical in serving, if we know a person is a thief, has been in the past, and they move and suddenly, homes are being robbed , we Do go with the knowledge of his/her behaviours.. Yet he/she was such a nice guy , always sweet and wiling to help anyone in the neighborhood.
Sexual preditors of children often become "pillars of the community" encased in causes of good for children and the good will of the enitre community. family men, and often determined above any critical assessment because of their "character", and servant attitude towards others.
how many times are we shocked at the news of some horrid crimes from a family member or a nighbor or a co-worker when we thought he was such a great girl or guy and never would have thought he was capable of such crimes or behaviours?
character is subjective ex10, and at what point to do cease "people pleasing" with this attitude and become honest , and be willing to listen to the facts that people have knowledge of ?
spin and con is easy to do and the ploy of being victim or a misunderstanding has a long standing position of allowing denial of what isnt popular to hear, from those who have knowledge that doesnt fit in with your person assessment of a person "character".
Edited by pondLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Some people will never get a clue OM. No true critic of VPW will ever begin to appreciate that fact, anymore than the true pessimist who insists that the glass half full of water is still empty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Same for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin.. can't come to power without kissing a FEW babies.. poor babies.. ptooie
I wouldn't exactly say it that way. The times he spoke forth the word and taught the word with believing(and I REALLY can't quite swallow that) he was PRETENDING to be a man of good character, a man which he knew he SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink 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.