Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Is it okay to recommend wierwilles books to others?


ImLikeSoConfused
 Share

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Mike said:

HOLY MACKEREL!   That's a wild thread.

Einstein, Heisenberg, Godel, Bullinger, and Ralph D all together.  I'm including Ralph because I'm going to read his article in the feschrift.  

 

feschrift ?

or did you mean covfefe -

which is Russian for zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OldSkool said:

Maan. It's simple.

http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism

Wierwille, who was supposed to be a Dr., should have known better. All the excuses in the world doesnt make Wierwilles actions acceptable, he stole his ideas and presented them as his own.

Mind u, im not saying the content vpw stole was wrong, harmful, or totally inaccurate. Im simply saying that he was a plagiarist, amongst many othet things.

OldSkool,

Which of these following three arenas of thought and activity do you think your link and your mindset are coming from in making such proclamations?

Book Market.....Academic University.....Family of God

I usually use plagiarism for #2 the “academy” and copyright infringement for #1 the market.   

Notice #3 is a little different in this post. Same theme, though. New details.

IF it is the case that I’m right and Dr did get these revelations to “put it all together” then the REAL ownership of the intellectual property is God.

I’ll say it again a little differently. IF it’s the case that God gave a revelation (or two or ten) to some of Dr’s sources, then it’s perfectly right and proper for God, the owner of the idea, to tell Dr to go to Styles and use this, this, this, and this, but not that, and not that.

Did you know that in at least one place Dr said that one or another of his sources had received a revelation from God? I can look it up if anyone’s interested.

Why did none of Dr’s sources sue him for copyright infringement? Maybe because they too knew the true ownership of the ideas.

How many brand new ideas does that make for this post. I don’t mean “brand new” in the sense that I just originated them. No sir! That would be plagiarism or something like it. :)

What I mean by new is how many of these ideas I’m throwing out are new to you folks?  They are worth more than a knee jerk rejection. Please take a month or so to think about them before tossing them off. I took years to ponder them.

 

 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

feschrift ?

or did you mean covfefe -

which is Russian for zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh yeah! Covfefe!

Isn’t that the new Russian cogno-hypnosis meme that starts self replicating after the third repetition?

... Be careful with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

...Why did none of Dr’s sources sue him for copyright infringement? Maybe because they too knew the true ownership of the ideas.

 

Probably because vp chose to hide his plagiarism in obscurity - so the rightful owners of the intellectual property never found out - I did mention earlier that's probably why vp's books were only sold to a closed market - i.e. Students of PFAL

Edited by T-Bone
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Probably because vp chose to hide his plagiarism in obscurity - so the rightful owners of the intellectual property never found out - I did mention earlier that's probably why vp's books were only sold to a closed market - i.e. Students of PFAL

ADAN was originally farmed out to Devon Adair publishing.

Plus, the filming of the class was an investment in non obscurity. BTW, it's the 50th anniversary of it's filming.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

ADAN was originally farmed out to Devon Adair publishing.

Plus, the filming of the class was an investment in non obscurity. BTW, it's the 50th anniversary of it's filming.

Publishing and filming are not the same thing as marketing - or in other words - what audience is it released to... the open market or some two bit obscure cult following

Edited by T-Bone
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Publishing and filming is not the same thing as marketing - or in other words - what audience is it released to... the open market or some two bit obscure cult following

In the 50s Dr was making all kinds of waves in his church, making a lot of enemies. It's hard to imagine no one told Kenyon and the others that VPW was using those texts. In 1962 they started gearing up for a much larger non-obscure ministry.  They filmed the PFAL class in Black and White. It had hand drawn charts and Dr's camera skills were terrible. I don't know how many segments were made, but I saw one. It was laughable. YET, they (many collaborators and financial contributors) kept pressing and got it all together. That 1967 color video still impresses me today.  Obscurity was not at all in the plan. The audience was widened still by the Life and Time Magazine articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VPW taught nobody goes beyond what they are taught

VPW taught the concept of revelation from God

VPW's source for the concept of revelation from God was revelation from God

But VPW hadn't learned how to receive revelation from God

So Abra Cadabra snow on the gas pumps.  VPW suddenly gets it.

As did everyone who believed.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

VPW taught nobody goes beyond what they are taught

VPW taught the concept of revelation from God

VPW's source for the concept of revelation from God was revelation from God

But VPW hadn't learned how to receive revelation from God

So Abra Cadabra snow on the gas pumps.  VPW suddenly gets it.

As did everyone who believed.

God can teach a man how to receive revelation by starting with phenomena.

He did that for the temple boy (Elija?) who kept waking up the sleeping prophet thinking the prophet had called him, all the while it was God calling him. The boy heard phenomena from God, and it initiated a successful teaching in how the boy could receive revelation.

We must know how to operate the manifestations, including the revelation manifestations. But phenomena is something that is of God's doing.

Nice, try, though. I like logical thinking.

 

PS - Moses and burning bush. Paul on road to Damascus, etc.

 

 

 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2017 at 3:23 AM, Mike said:

I screwed something up and can't get rid of the "Mike said:" stamp.

Anyway, putting the plagiarism, phony credentials and illicit behavior on the back burner for the moment,  I'm proposing a simple question.

Supposing the contents of PFAL are really divinely inspired, why do you suppose God chose to include so many items that have been proven to be demonstrably inaccurate?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mike said:

In the 50s Dr was making all kinds of waves in his church, making a lot of enemies. It's hard to imagine no one told Kenyon and the others that VPW was using those texts. In 1962 they started gearing up for a much larger non-obscure ministry.  They filmed the PFAL class in Black and White. It had hand drawn charts and Dr's camera skills were terrible. I don't know how many segments were made, but I saw one. It was laughable. YET, they (many collaborators and financial contributors) kept pressing and got it all together. That 1967 color video still impresses me today.  Obscurity was not at all in the plan. The audience was widened still by the Life and Time Magazine articles.

I'm sure vp's adultery did make some waves in his old church

and all the production details, collaborators, financial backers etc still does not justify plagiarism- in fact, I would think that might  make all involved as accessories to the crime - but I guess the copyright lawyers should hash all that out

ha those old articles ! vp craved recognition as long as it was positive; but geez whiz  - what if it became common knowledge he hijacked the Jesus movement too- the lying thieving weasel he stole that too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

waysider,

You wrote: "... items that have been proven to be demonstrably inaccurate..."

Proven by whom and proven how?  

I have found that most approaches here were started with a pre-determined outcome in mind. That is a fundamental point of method I would (and have) refuse to knowledge as an honest start. 

I use a point of method that is the opposite, very much like we were taught to approach the problems and inaccuracies that are found in all the ancient manuscripts.  How research is conducted within PFAL should be the same IMO. So, like the original scriptures, the inaccuracies are illusions that can be worked out with patience, time, and guidance.  When I find an apparent error in PFAL I take my time and it usually goes away in a fairly short time. Some are slower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

God can teach a man how to receive revelation by starting with phenomena.

He did that for the temple boy (Elija?) who kept waking up the sleeping prophet thinking the prophet had called him, all the while it was God calling him. The boy heard phenomena from God, and it initiated a successful teaching in how the boy could receive revelation.

We must know how to operate the manifestations, including the revelation manifestations. But phenomena is something that is of God's doing.

Nice, try, though. I like logical thinking.

 

PS - Moses and burning bush. Paul on road to Damascus, etc.

 

 

 

It says phenomena in the verse right were it is written or is this from scripture build up?  Cite your source please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

... waves in his old church...

 

I was thinking of his trip to India and the article he wrote in protest. He also made waves when Donnie was hurt in an accident and possibly broke his back. Peopel were freaked out about that healing and actually angry. He was not obscure kin the Bible Belt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bolshevik said:

Nope.  I used a dictionary.  Your use of the word phenomena is ubiquitous.  

My use of it is from the Advanced Class. I was just passing along one of the uncontested items of that class. At lease, I never heard of any controversy with it. What I posted was vanilla AC material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike said:

My use of it is from the Advanced Class. I was just passing along one of the uncontested items of that class. At lease, I never heard of any controversy with it. What I posted was vanilla AC material.

Got it.  I need to take a class to learn and understand a new language.  Then I am allowed refute your claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bolshevik said:

Got it.  I need to take a class to learn and understand a new language.  Then I am allowed refute your claim?

You can do it now. I was simply trying to clarify better for you what I had intended to say.  I was answering the little logic dilemma you had posed.  I just don't see any logical inconsistency in what Dr taught about him receiving revelation kind of from scratch. God taught him. No problem for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

I was thinking of his trip to India and the article he wrote in protest. He also made waves when Donnie was hurt in an accident and possibly broke his back. Peopel were freaked out about that healing and actually angry. He was not obscure kin the Bible Belt.

You can believe whatever fairytales you want about super-plagiarist vp; keep in mind a lot of other folks have taken off the vp-blinders and have realized he is more like kinfolk to false prophets 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mike said:

My use of it is from the Advanced Class. I was just passing along one of the uncontested items of that class. At lease, I never heard of any controversy with it. What I posted was vanilla AC material.

You do know the definition used in the Advanced Class were plagiarized, don't you? Even if they hadn't been, it would be a circular argument using the Advanced Class to prove its own validity.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

You can do it now. I was simply trying to clarify better for you what I had intended to say.  I was answering the little logic dilemma you had posed.  I just don't see any logical inconsistency in what Dr taught about him receiving revelation kind of from scratch. God taught him. No problem for me.

A dangerous psychopath does not need to be logically inconsistent to be wrong.

VPW built a consistant world.  Consistant as long as you choose to stay in it.

I do not believe you have sufficiently answered why you trust VPW, or why it is acceptable for anyone to do so.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, waysider said:

 

There are factual errors in PFAL, quite a few of them. These are not matters of opinion. Your opinion and my opinion can be different. Facts, on the other hand, stand on their own, without anyone's blessing or damnation. Why, if the PFAL material is divinely inspired, does it contain legitimate, factual error? You needn't respond. The question is rhetorical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mike said:

You can do it now. I was simply trying to clarify better for you what I had intended to say.  I was answering the little logic dilemma you had posed.  I just don't see any logical inconsistency in what Dr taught about him receiving revelation kind of from scratch. God taught him. No problem for me.

Being that you have such a flagrant disregard for the laws against plagiarism- I guess I shouldn't be surprised you have your own laws of logic too.

Link 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...