It's LIKE filibustering, to use the weaker figure of speech, simile. To say that it IS filibustering is to use the stronger figure, metaphor. In neither case are ALL the elements in line.
The objections I have are in line with the objections to filibustering: it's naked hindrance. It's an opposition to the decent presentation of ideas. It's like singing the Star Spangled Banner to drown out a soap box exercise of free speech.
I, however, DID laugh out loud at your notation of the thread title, but doojable just couldn't have known.
What have you learned from PFAL that you could not learn from the Word itself? (The answer "how to work the word just isn't good enough - because that information was available long before the class.)"
The class teaches how to work the Word - not how to live life. Otherwise, there are literally HUNDREDS of books out there that tell us more than the Word. ( Please so not interpret this as my thinking the Word of God has no value. Just trying to flesh out poor logic.)
There are English majors out there that spend years of their lives piecing together the works of William Faulkner. Their theses (plural of thesis - I think) show how his books work together and carry themes and characters from one book to the next. Just because they help a reader enjoy Faulkner no one would dare to say that they have just ADDED to the works of Faulkner.
Bullinger wrote "How to Enjoy the Bible", about 100 years prior to PFAL. Then there was the afformentioned BG Leonard class. Not saying that PFAL didn't have anything to offer - just that it wasn't new and it wasn't scripture.
The objections I have are in line with the objections to filibustering: it's naked hindrance.
But that's just it, Mike. Nobody is hindering you. Nobody is making you get out of bed to post. All of your posts are done on a totally 100% voluntary basis. No hinderance or compulsion involved.
I must agree that "Filerbustering" just isn't the case here. In order to answer a long piece another long piece must be written.
I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways..
You can't on the one hand demand context and then complain when you are quoted and debunked. Even if you feel that the debunking is unwarranted, it's the game. If anyone of us don't want to play we take our ball and go home (ie stop posting.)
It may be tiresome, true - but just don't answer those arguments that you deem unimportant. Free will still exists.
Vic Wierwille clearly believed that his interpretation of the bible was superior to anyone else's.
He also believed that if the existing texts did not support what he taught, then the text was a forgery, or that there was another text out there that supported his position.
For all his talk about PFAL being a "class on keys" for us to learn how to read, interpret and understand the bible for ourselves, and despite his putting the written 'Word' on a pedestal above any opinion or doctrine of men, his word was still elevated above anything that was written in the bible.
He was certainly right when he pointed out that no translation can be called THEWord of God, and he was absolutely right when he taught that by making use of the biblical languages, knowledge of eastern customs, figures of speech we could get closer to the 'original' god-breathed Word. But nothing that was written, no textual evidence, no quirks of Hebrew or Aramaic were enough if Wierwille thought it should mean something else.
He sold us biblical research, but he delivered blind obedience.
Although Wierwille was careful to always elevate the written 'Word', in practice, no text, no verse was as elevated as his own opinion. So, in a sense, Wierwille did believe that his doctrine was superior to the bible in any of it's translations or versions.
So, of course he wanted us to "master", not only the bible, but his spin on the bible, PFAL, and all of his other books.
But why would I believe that what Wierwille wanted was important? :unsure:
Why would I want to master the works of someone known to be a liar and a plagiarist? Someone whose definitions of Greek words are fanciful, and whose interpretations are contrived? Who could twist scripture into a pretzel so it would mean something other than the plain meaning?
I guess what I was trying to say was that with pfal truths peppered throughout the Word, who out there was teaching it AND making it known INTERNATIONALLY. If it wasn't for pfal I probably still wouldn't have heard half of what was made available.
What I tried to say a few posts ago was that I believe that even if VPW had not compiled all the writings of Bullinger, Leonard, et al, that GOD would have led you and I to these. He handled the birth of Jesus - I think He could have handled this -if it were what He truly wanted.
No confrontation here(or earlier) - I didn't mean for it to come off as such. My Yankee sarcasm gets me in trouble sometimes - but it also serves me well.....
Excuse me! I realize I am just jumping in here but doesn't ANYONE remember "I threw out all my other reading material and just read the Word"? How he poured over the Bible for hours, days, months, years? How he wouldn't even talk to a minister about the holy spirit because he already forgot more than that man would ever know? (Straight PFAL). Our choice is usually between good and best, not right and wrong. Unfortunately, in my lowly opinion, he chose between right and wrong and was dead wrong taking credit for other people's work.
the mex, sure it's possible to get the God-breathed Word today. "incline your ear" to God's mouth and listen. By means of the Holy spirit, He'll teach you.
Humans will never agree on doctrine. Thankfully, full doctrinal agreement is not a requirement for full fellowship.
We already dealt with that subject. I am tabling that one in my arguments so that another point can be argued. But you're right, VPW did let on that he came up with this all on his own. Somewhere around page 4 or so the concept of plagerism was dropped, just for simplicity's sake.
I see at least ten topics here I'd love to have the time to dispatch with,
[but since you CAN'T,
you'll ignore all the ones you CAN'T and single out a
"soft" target, same as always...]
but doojable's post deserves the most time, in my opinion.
[Here it comes.]
***
Since this is on topic, and not on me:
dmiller,
You wrote: "Did docvic ever say it's the Orange, Blue, or Green book like you do????"
[Actually, this is a PARTIAL quote of dmiller,
trimmed down to conceal the original point.
"While he said many times
*It's the Word, the Word and nuthing but the Word*
I never heard him say
*It's the Orange Book*
*It's the Blue Book*
*It's the Green Book*
Etc., etc., etc.,
Whatcha think, Mike???
Did docvic ever say it's the Orange, Blue or Green Book like you do???"
Chopped down,
Mike can pretend to answer this more easily.
Of course, he had to change what he's answering, but that's
typical those rare times Mike CLAIMS to answer errors in his doctrine.]
I don't even have to be awake to answer this.
[He said "It's the Orange Book" the same way he said
"It's the Word?" You're going to find someplace he said that?
Or you're going to quote something else and CLAIM it's the same
thing? Again?]
Yes. He said it in his last teaching when he said that the object of our mastery efforts should be those VERY books... and a few more.
[Not the same thing. Scroll up a bit and compare the points,
AND the sentences.]
This was addressed to top leadership, with some application to all born again believers.
He also said it in the 1979 AC segment #5, addressed to AC students and grads, with these words: "I have set for our people, and it's set in the book on 'Receiving the Holy Spirit Today,' and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven't, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it's utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I've discovered as I've worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves."
[This always seems to come as a shock to Mike,
but the STATED purpose of the books is to
EXPLAIN the Word of God,
to help you UNDERSTAND the Word of God,
NOT to REWRITE the Word of God.
Now, under that premise,
reading "Cliff's Notes" on the Word of God
would assist in UNDERSTANDING the Word of God.
Any high school student, any college student,
should understand this.
That's how everyone BUT Mike understood this.
Mike, however, heard
"It's the Orange Book, it's the Blue Book, it's the Green Book."
We know this because he just SAID that's what this meant.
(For those wondering,
I shall repost-again-the relevant quotes from the
Orange and White Books.)
He also said it at Sound Out '84 that younger believers should think about mastering JCOP and JCPS, and JCNG. I think, those three are mentioned, but I'm too tired to check the tape or my notes.
[Which STILL doesn't say
"It's this book, it's that book"
in the same manner as "It's the Word, the Word and nuthing but the Word".
Recommending something for study is rarely confused for that-
except between Mike's ears.]
He also said it in his second to the last teaching, "The Hope," that we should think about mastering ADAN.
["You should think about mastering ADAN."
"It's the Word, the Word, and nuthing but the Word."
Nope.
STILL different.]
He also strongly hinted at it to the Early Corps in the mid 70's about RHST mastery, later distributed in Univ of Life Ephesians #17.
[God only knows what was said when Mike says something is
"strongly hinted at"...]
Thank you, dmiller. Your question gave me the opportunity to post these references again, after posting them about a dozen times each. Don't they sound familiar by now?
[Yes-
and they still have failed to change to match Mikean doctrine.]
Notice that these all occur in the later stages of Dr's ministry, when upper leadership had first tuned him out in the late 70's and spreading to everyone by the mid 80's.
[Notice all these occur when these books are READILY AVAILABLE.
In the early 70s, most of these books were not WRITTEN.
Why tell someone to study something that hasn't been written yet?
Might as well request Novacaine during the French Revolution...]
***
The shotgun approach to hitting me with vast quantities of subjects demanding responses is really getting ridiculous.
[The shotgun approach of having that many errors has BEEN ridiculous for years,
but I was taking it EASY on you before....]
For ww to do this alone is bad enough, but for all of you to barrage me with challenges is wasting all your time and mine.
[it's called "discussing your ridiculous claims."
We discuss things on this DISCUSSION FORUM.
Don't like your posts discussed?
Don't post them in this DISCUSSION FORUM.
When you expose your error to the public,
you run the risk of critiques.
That's the cost of doing business.]
This is filibustering at it's worst,
[Displaying your ignorance again AFTER people
have explained how this is NOT filibustering,
and what filibustering IS,
is hardly putting you in a favorable light....]
and is rotten to the core.
[You get to rewrite books until the contents supposedly
match the doctrine you already decided was in them,
I call you on it,
and MY action is bad?
This is hardly a masterful display of acuity on your part...]
It's nothing but the prevention of action through deliberate abuse within the rules.
[You're rewriting events-and posts-to match what you
WANT to see.
Go ahead, keep it up.
You're educating the new people in how sloppy your
methodology is every time you do it.]
It resembles TWI strategies at their worst.
[Open discussion-which the rest of us are
engaging in-is the antithesis of twi.
YOU'RE the one who wants to end DISCUSSION
and only have people applauding and agreeing with you.
That's classic twi right there.]
Some of you could make very "respectable" lawyers and great incomes prostituting your intellects and QWERTY skills for TWI-like clients trying to use the letter of the law to circumvent intent of the law. . .
In the US Senate they call it filibustering.
[Again,
this is nothing like what the US Senate calls "filibustering."
But, again, rewriting the LANGUAGE until it
says what you want it to say is classic Mike.]
I'd suggest to WW that he select out of all his objections the one most worthy of all of our time, both his and mine and the rest of us.
[You have so MANY errors, though,
that for me to single ONE is to do a disservice to the REST.
I USED to give you months and months to supposedly
eventually address these SAME points.
These are YEARS old.
You have FAILED to address your ERRORS for YEARS now.
Your work is piling up.
Don't blame ME for that.
I said go do your stuff, THEN come back and address them
even if that took months.
YOU'RE the one who wants to skip answering your own
problems with your own doctrine....
Finally,
this is NOT the MIKE forums.
You STILL do not set policy here.]
Same to the rest of you. Form a committee and select some FEW items we can get into in detail.
[This is STILL not the MIKE forums.
You STILL do not set policy here.]
Otherwise I'll just ignore you all
[ignoring me while I post the flaws in your doctrine
will just highlight how shoddy your doctrine is.
If you really want that, by all means, do so.
Pointing out the shoddiness of your doctrine
was what I wanted in the second place.
(I was hoping you'd see the errors and learn in the
first place, but, since you're resolute to retain error,
I go to plan B.)
This makes my job easier.]
and have a private discussion with doojable right in front of you all. Or she and I could resort to PMs if you all insist on misbehaving any more.
["Misbehaving"- Mikespeak for
"refuting Mike's doctrine to the degree Mike can't get people
to even imagine he's got some secret hidden "special" doctrine.
Mike's rewriting the dictionary again.... ]
***
There are a few exceptions to this complaint of mine, like oldiesman, and a few others.
[Only those agreeing with you have your respect.
People pointing out your errors do not.
RESPECTABLE researchers VALUE those who can find
the FLAWS in their work.
Then there's people like Mike, who face FLAWS in their
work and go out of their way to cower in fear from them...]
Allan, are you blocking my e-mails AND my PMs to you? I can't get a response from you.
***
Now, does anyone see any ONE topic addressed to me on these many pages of this one thread worth me interrupting my sleep and interrupting my composing of my response to doojable to deal with?
[This is not the MIKE forum,
and you do not set POLICY here.]
If so I'd be happy to judge it's overall merits and spiritual profit, and it it fails I'll "thumbs down" it with a righteous and deliberate DODGE, which is simply a rhetorical and elegant usage of the "ignore" feature in every respect.
[That's an honest explanation of Mike's approach-
eliminate almost all criticism of Mikean doctrine,
and if he doesn't like the remainder,
he'll just ignore it and pretend it didn't exist.
That's unusually candid of Mike.]
====================
This is filibustering at it's worst, and is rotten to the core. It's nothing but the prevention of action through deliberate abuse within the rules. It resembles TWI strategies at their worst. Some of you could make very "respectable" lawyers and great incomes prostituting your intellects and QWERTY skills for TWI-like clients trying to use the letter of the law to circumvent intent of the law. . .
In the US Senate they call it filibustering. "
"That would make sense if WordWolf thought that you would answer his objections, or if they were even really addressed to you any more. WW can correct me if I'm wrong, but I see the Wolf's posts as rebuttals and debunkings of your unique interpretations of PFAL.
I think he provides a valuable service here at GS
and another thing:
Filibustering is different than what is going on here.
If GS was the Senate, and WordWolf was filibustering, no one would be able to post until he was finished.
Nothing that WordWolf or anyone else does prevents you from posting your message. Nothing compels you to answer him or anyone else. In fact, you couild both be posting at the same time and both of your posts would appear.
You make statements that most here think are unfounded. I can only recall one poster who was with you whole hog, and a handful of others who sympathized with you generally, without buying into your basic premise. Anmd you're surprised that someone vehemently disagrees?"
"Oak,
It's LIKE filibustering, to use the weaker figure of speech, simile. To say that it IS filibustering is to use the stronger figure, metaphor. In neither case are ALL the elements in line.
The objections I have are in line with the objections to filibustering: it's naked hindrance. It's an opposition to the decent presentation of ideas. It's like singing the Star Spangled Banner to drown out a soap box exercise of free speech. "
That was fast.
Mike couldn't even go 24 hours without trying to rewrite his post history.
"Filibustering at its worst" and "In the US Senate they call it filibustering"
were rewritten into
"It's LIKE filibustering" and "simile." "To say that it IS filibustering is to use the stronger figure, metaphor."
Either Mike can't tell that he's rewriting,
which means he's out of touch with reality,
OR
Mike is deliberately lying thru his teeth,
which means NOTHING he posts can be trusted,
OR
Mike lacks even a BASIC understanding of
Figures of Speech.
If Mike lacks even a BASIC understanding of
Figures of Speech,
he lacks a BASIC understanding of one of the most CRITICAL
components of pfal- "Figures of Speech".
If Mike lacks THAT, he has no business even PRETENDING
doojable: Thanks. I figured it had probably already been brought up, but didn't have time to read it all. So, if that's not the question, what is? Seems a lot of back and forth arguing that is too hard to follow ....
The first point I brought up many, many pages ago was the plagerism. That started a barrage of comments that caused this topic to become the monster that it is.
Now the main discussion (and a recurring one I surmise) is whether or not the PFAL class is God-breathed. Most say NOT - but there is at least one hold out (mike) I think he has a few friends on this matter but I'm not sure since sarcasm doesn't always read as such.
The crux of the matter is that this is a recurring theme here at GS and when I started this topic i wasn't aware of the can of worms I was opening. It is the embodiment of Pandora's box.
The first point I brought up many, many pages ago was the plagerism.
Ok. --- here goes.
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works, and passed it off as his own. Some of us understand that, some don't, and some think he had a direct line to God, and got pfal from Him.
Now ----
A simple analogy (if I may).
I play the fiddle, mandolin, banjo, yada yada, and though I have often taken stuff from others to incorporate into my own *interpretation* of how a tune should be played, I have NEVER claimed it as my own, as has docvic and his *research* in his bible teachings.
To be sure, what I garnered from others musically became *my style*, but *my style* is now, and always has been a recognizeable copying of what other folks have done in the past (hey -- there's recordings of all this stuff before I used it -- just like there's a lot of teachings before docvic came up with his stuff).
I never threw out my old vinyl records
(like docvic supposedly did with all his books)
I learned from them, and used them to my advantage
(as did docvic from others in those books, but he claimed authorship)
Docvic copied (plain and simple), and called it his own.
He wasn't willing to call a spade a spade ---
Or give credit -------
He had to have it all.
Plagiarism is something that he did willfully since it was touted to us all that he *threw out those books, and studied on his own*. I have several friends who are teachers, and are familiar with the concept of plagiarizing.
If you want me to (Mike), I can ask them what their standards are for a test, or a report, or a term paper.
To take your analogy further, I'm sure that you don't cite "old sheet music" that nobody has ever seen to bolster a claim that what we know as "C sharp" is actually "D sharp", and that the rest of the music world is stupid.
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works, and passed it off as his own. Some of us understand that, some don't, and some think he had a direct line to God, and got pfal from Him.
dmiller, sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you, and I base my belief on the following:
Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.
Victor Paul Wierwille, 1972
The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside
page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he "passed it off as his own."
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that, there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own, but rather saying "lots of the stuff I teach is not original."
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own, he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
The previous statement also would disprove that PFAL is God-Breathed, since he received the content from other sources ... and not by revelation.
You know--- Mike's contention that since God gave the rev to VPW exempts the good "Dr" from the responsibility to cite his source - since the info was God's to give - got me thinking....
Any places where in the Bible where God told someone to bend the rules - or out and out break them? What about taking credit for something that he or she did not do? I can't think of any...
I can only think of Abraham's "white lie" concerning Sarah being his sister. God got kinda' ticked about that - it almost cost Sarai a whole lot as well. Abe tried to take a shortcut and tell a partial truth and God put a stop to it.
Then of course there's Jesus Christ himself - if anyone could have skipped the responsibilty of citing his sources it would be him - right? Nope! he cited Isaiah, among others and he FREQUENTLY said "it is Written" Not "I just got an Idea"
I know that this horse is quite dead, but I still maintain that even if we want to concede that God led VPW to the info that eventually became PFAL, he did not endorse plagiarism. Besides, the leading to the info - THAT could have been the heavy-revvy. (Giving benefit of the doubt here. To all those poised to start typing, hold that thought! ;) )Dr still had the responsibility to cite "It has been written - by others..." Now could good have been done with stolen goods - perhaps. But wasn't it Dr himself that told us to always tell the truth - "tell the truth and you can forget - lie and you always have to remember it." it seems that therein lies the beginning of the reason for manipulation.
I know, I know i'm just restating the obvious - AGAIN. so fire me! :)
I understand what you're saying - but then my question is : Why didn't he add THAT very selfsame statement to a forward in subsequent editions of the Orange Book - or any of the collaterals for that matter?
I never owned "The Way Living in Love" why would I have had to buy that book in order to get that info. One line in an obscure book that was maybe purchased AFTER one had already taken the class. Also, I never saw those books at limb meetings or at any of the PFAL open houses. Those books were, to the best of my knowledge only sold at HQ. Still has a sense of manipulation to me. I'm not sure that as a starving art student I would have passed up the opportunity to buy books one at a time as I could afford them rather than have to sell a camera so that I could get the $$ for PFAL.
Why didn't he add THAT very selfsame statement to a forward in subsequent editions of the Orange Book - or any of the collaterals for that matter?
I cannot say why and I cannot ask him or speak for him, he's dead.
All I know is, from the evidence we have, I believe he communicated that his stuff was not original and he didn't try to palm this stuff off as "his own."
It was stated in the collaterals that VP "learned from men of God scattered across the continent"
He said himself that his stuff wasn't original, in 1972.
And please honestly ask yourself something: even if he had directly listed all of his sources in all his books; ... would that have changed anything? your believing or commitment at the time?
It wouldn't have mattered one iota to me whether others were listed as sources.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
44
64
30
Popular Days
Feb 9
42
Dec 12
39
Dec 8
35
Dec 13
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 45 posts
WordWolf 44 posts
Mike 64 posts
doojable 30 posts
Popular Days
Feb 9 2006
42 posts
Dec 12 2005
39 posts
Dec 8 2005
35 posts
Dec 13 2005
33 posts
Mike
Oak,
It's LIKE filibustering, to use the weaker figure of speech, simile. To say that it IS filibustering is to use the stronger figure, metaphor. In neither case are ALL the elements in line.
The objections I have are in line with the objections to filibustering: it's naked hindrance. It's an opposition to the decent presentation of ideas. It's like singing the Star Spangled Banner to drown out a soap box exercise of free speech.
I, however, DID laugh out loud at your notation of the thread title, but doojable just couldn't have known.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Allan,
The WHOLE quote was:
What have you learned from PFAL that you could not learn from the Word itself? (The answer "how to work the word just isn't good enough - because that information was available long before the class.)"
The class teaches how to work the Word - not how to live life. Otherwise, there are literally HUNDREDS of books out there that tell us more than the Word. ( Please so not interpret this as my thinking the Word of God has no value. Just trying to flesh out poor logic.)
There are English majors out there that spend years of their lives piecing together the works of William Faulkner. Their theses (plural of thesis - I think) show how his books work together and carry themes and characters from one book to the next. Just because they help a reader enjoy Faulkner no one would dare to say that they have just ADDED to the works of Faulkner.
Bullinger wrote "How to Enjoy the Bible", about 100 years prior to PFAL. Then there was the afformentioned BG Leonard class. Not saying that PFAL didn't have anything to offer - just that it wasn't new and it wasn't scripture.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
But that's just it, Mike. Nobody is hindering you. Nobody is making you get out of bed to post. All of your posts are done on a totally 100% voluntary basis. No hinderance or compulsion involved.
So there isn't even a 'simile'. At all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike,
I must agree that "Filerbustering" just isn't the case here. In order to answer a long piece another long piece must be written.
I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways..
You can't on the one hand demand context and then complain when you are quoted and debunked. Even if you feel that the debunking is unwarranted, it's the game. If anyone of us don't want to play we take our ball and go home (ie stop posting.)
It may be tiresome, true - but just don't answer those arguments that you deem unimportant. Free will still exists.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Vic Wierwille clearly believed that his interpretation of the bible was superior to anyone else's.
He also believed that if the existing texts did not support what he taught, then the text was a forgery, or that there was another text out there that supported his position.
For all his talk about PFAL being a "class on keys" for us to learn how to read, interpret and understand the bible for ourselves, and despite his putting the written 'Word' on a pedestal above any opinion or doctrine of men, his word was still elevated above anything that was written in the bible.
He was certainly right when he pointed out that no translation can be called THE Word of God, and he was absolutely right when he taught that by making use of the biblical languages, knowledge of eastern customs, figures of speech we could get closer to the 'original' god-breathed Word. But nothing that was written, no textual evidence, no quirks of Hebrew or Aramaic were enough if Wierwille thought it should mean something else.
He sold us biblical research, but he delivered blind obedience.
Although Wierwille was careful to always elevate the written 'Word', in practice, no text, no verse was as elevated as his own opinion. So, in a sense, Wierwille did believe that his doctrine was superior to the bible in any of it's translations or versions.
So, of course he wanted us to "master", not only the bible, but his spin on the bible, PFAL, and all of his other books.
But why would I believe that what Wierwille wanted was important? :unsure:
Why would I want to master the works of someone known to be a liar and a plagiarist? Someone whose definitions of Greek words are fanciful, and whose interpretations are contrived? Who could twist scripture into a pretzel so it would mean something other than the plain meaning?
No thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Suppose I were to say that God told me to tell you that PFAL was not God-breathed......
Ahhhhhh - now there's dueling revelation. (anyone have that little ditty from "deliverance" handy?
LOL)
My point is and remains that God has to prove the work not the man writing or reading it.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I guess what I was trying to say was that with pfal truths peppered throughout the Word, who out there was teaching it AND making it known INTERNATIONALLY. If it wasn't for pfal I probably still wouldn't have heard half of what was made available.
Mike..I don't have anyone on ignore or blocked !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Allan,
What I tried to say a few posts ago was that I believe that even if VPW had not compiled all the writings of Bullinger, Leonard, et al, that GOD would have led you and I to these. He handled the birth of Jesus - I think He could have handled this -if it were what He truly wanted.
No confrontation here(or earlier) - I didn't mean for it to come off as such. My Yankee sarcasm gets me in trouble sometimes - but it also serves me well.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Excuse me! I realize I am just jumping in here but doesn't ANYONE remember "I threw out all my other reading material and just read the Word"? How he poured over the Bible for hours, days, months, years? How he wouldn't even talk to a minister about the holy spirit because he already forgot more than that man would ever know? (Straight PFAL). Our choice is usually between good and best, not right and wrong. Unfortunately, in my lowly opinion, he chose between right and wrong and was dead wrong taking credit for other people's work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
Is possible to get to the God´s brethed Word? that we all ex and way believers agreed in the doctrin? because we are like the Babel tower! :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
the mex, sure it's possible to get the God-breathed Word today. "incline your ear" to God's mouth and listen. By means of the Holy spirit, He'll teach you.
Humans will never agree on doctrine. Thankfully, full doctrinal agreement is not a requirement for full fellowship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Irisheyes:
We already dealt with that subject. I am tabling that one in my arguments so that another point can be argued. But you're right, VPW did let on that he came up with this all on his own. Somewhere around page 4 or so the concept of plagerism was dropped, just for simplicity's sake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in brackets/boldface.]
====================
That was fast.
Mike couldn't even go 24 hours without trying to rewrite his post history.
"Filibustering at its worst" and "In the US Senate they call it filibustering"
were rewritten into
"It's LIKE filibustering" and "simile." "To say that it IS filibustering is to use the stronger figure, metaphor."
Either Mike can't tell that he's rewriting,
which means he's out of touch with reality,
OR
Mike is deliberately lying thru his teeth,
which means NOTHING he posts can be trusted,
OR
Mike lacks even a BASIC understanding of
Figures of Speech.
If Mike lacks even a BASIC understanding of
Figures of Speech,
he lacks a BASIC understanding of one of the most CRITICAL
components of pfal- "Figures of Speech".
If Mike lacks THAT, he has no business even PRETENDING
he knows what's in the class/books.
Readers may take their pick.....
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
doojable: Thanks. I figured it had probably already been brought up, but didn't have time to read it all. So, if that's not the question, what is? Seems a lot of back and forth arguing that is too hard to follow ....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Irisheyes,
The first point I brought up many, many pages ago was the plagerism. That started a barrage of comments that caused this topic to become the monster that it is.
Now the main discussion (and a recurring one I surmise) is whether or not the PFAL class is God-breathed. Most say NOT - but there is at least one hold out (mike) I think he has a few friends on this matter but I'm not sure since sarcasm doesn't always read as such.
The crux of the matter is that this is a recurring theme here at GS and when I started this topic i wasn't aware of the can of worms I was opening. It is the embodiment of Pandora's box.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmm. Like Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon, etc., etc., etc.???
Guess we travelled in the *wrong* circles, eh?
;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ok. --- here goes.
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works, and passed it off as his own. Some of us understand that, some don't, and some think he had a direct line to God, and got pfal from Him.
Now ----
A simple analogy (if I may).
I play the fiddle, mandolin, banjo, yada yada, and though I have often taken stuff from others to incorporate into my own *interpretation* of how a tune should be played, I have NEVER claimed it as my own, as has docvic and his *research* in his bible teachings.
To be sure, what I garnered from others musically became *my style*, but *my style* is now, and always has been a recognizeable copying of what other folks have done in the past (hey -- there's recordings of all this stuff before I used it -- just like there's a lot of teachings before docvic came up with his stuff).
I never threw out my old vinyl records
(like docvic supposedly did with all his books)
I learned from them, and used them to my advantage
(as did docvic from others in those books, but he claimed authorship)
Docvic copied (plain and simple), and called it his own.
He wasn't willing to call a spade a spade ---
Or give credit -------
He had to have it all.
Plagiarism is something that he did willfully since it was touted to us all that he *threw out those books, and studied on his own*. I have several friends who are teachers, and are familiar with the concept of plagiarizing.
If you want me to (Mike), I can ask them what their standards are for a test, or a report, or a term paper.
Me thinks that docvic would flunk their test.
But that is just my imho. :)
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
dmiller:
To take your analogy further, I'm sure that you don't cite "old sheet music" that nobody has ever seen to bolster a claim that what we know as "C sharp" is actually "D sharp", and that the rest of the music world is stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Or that there are really 4 c's in a measure instead of 2 - oh wait 2 of them are c sharps - they are of a different kind
Just having some fun here - I know just enough music to be dangerous
carry on with the seriousness....:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Why bother plagiarizing other people's works when you can claim to have invented the instruments?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
dmiller, sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you, and I base my belief on the following:
Victor Paul Wierwille, 1972The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside
page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he "passed it off as his own."
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that, there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own, but rather saying "lots of the stuff I teach is not original."
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own, he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
The previous statement also would disprove that PFAL is God-Breathed, since he received the content from other sources ... and not by revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
You know--- Mike's contention that since God gave the rev to VPW exempts the good "Dr" from the responsibility to cite his source - since the info was God's to give - got me thinking....
Any places where in the Bible where God told someone to bend the rules - or out and out break them? What about taking credit for something that he or she did not do? I can't think of any...
I can only think of Abraham's "white lie" concerning Sarah being his sister. God got kinda' ticked about that - it almost cost Sarai a whole lot as well. Abe tried to take a shortcut and tell a partial truth and God put a stop to it.
Then of course there's Jesus Christ himself - if anyone could have skipped the responsibilty of citing his sources it would be him - right? Nope! he cited Isaiah, among others and he FREQUENTLY said "it is Written" Not "I just got an Idea"
I know that this horse is quite dead, but I still maintain that even if we want to concede that God led VPW to the info that eventually became PFAL, he did not endorse plagiarism. Besides, the leading to the info - THAT could have been the heavy-revvy. (Giving benefit of the doubt here. To all those poised to start typing, hold that thought! ;) )Dr still had the responsibility to cite "It has been written - by others..." Now could good have been done with stolen goods - perhaps. But wasn't it Dr himself that told us to always tell the truth - "tell the truth and you can forget - lie and you always have to remember it." it seems that therein lies the beginning of the reason for manipulation.
I know, I know i'm just restating the obvious - AGAIN. so fire me! :)
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Om,
I understand what you're saying - but then my question is : Why didn't he add THAT very selfsame statement to a forward in subsequent editions of the Orange Book - or any of the collaterals for that matter?
I never owned "The Way Living in Love" why would I have had to buy that book in order to get that info. One line in an obscure book that was maybe purchased AFTER one had already taken the class. Also, I never saw those books at limb meetings or at any of the PFAL open houses. Those books were, to the best of my knowledge only sold at HQ. Still has a sense of manipulation to me. I'm not sure that as a starving art student I would have passed up the opportunity to buy books one at a time as I could afford them rather than have to sell a camera so that I could get the $$ for PFAL.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
dooj,
I cannot say why and I cannot ask him or speak for him, he's dead.
All I know is, from the evidence we have, I believe he communicated that his stuff was not original and he didn't try to palm this stuff off as "his own."
It was stated in the collaterals that VP "learned from men of God scattered across the continent"
He said himself that his stuff wasn't original, in 1972.
And please honestly ask yourself something: even if he had directly listed all of his sources in all his books; ... would that have changed anything? your believing or commitment at the time?
It wouldn't have mattered one iota to me whether others were listed as sources.
I probably would have thanked them as well.
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.