I guess all of us Wierwille detractors should get together and agree on one gripe...after all, we are one monolithic group who don't have differing opinions. :blink:
Oak you can have as many as you want the point was , just be consistent in your logic it can't morph back n forth. Most would agree that the class was made up of mostly collected works of others. If VPW plagiarized Bullingers work on figures of speech then it would remain true regardless of which one said it. It does not change because VP says it. truth is truth it is not dependant on morality of the speaker,race,creed or color, denominational affiliation, or anything else it stands on it's own regardless of who speaks it. It can't be both plagiarized truth from Bullinger and VP's perverted truth morphing back n forth depending on the gripe
Ummm.. It COULD, if after plagerizing truth from others..he perverted it with his own spin. Thus you have morphed perverted plagerized truth....makes sense to me :)
Ummm.. It COULD, if after plagerizing truth from others..he perverted it with his own spin. Thus you have morphed perverted plagerized truth....makes sense to me :)
...I'm just trying to get some of the PFAL proponents to step up to the plate. The longer these questions about error in PFAL go unanswered... Well, PFAL proponents are losing the field by forfeit. It's downright embarrassing.
What happened to the boldness that PFAL was supposed to give students?
The longer the silence goes on, the more I think my questions were too close to the truth for them to handle.
Sorry, Charlie - it's not going to happen. They will not debate PFAL because they can't. They can't prove or justify the teachings because they know that it's riddled with errors. What they will do, as you can clearly see, is attack those who question PFAL doctrine and change the subject as often and as much as they can.
They will also attempt to avoid answering to these invitations to actually discuss PFAL teachings by attacking those who say PFAL is riddled with errors. They bring up other threads and other discussions about the source of PFAL data, but they will never discuss the actual teachings.
I dunno, maybe they agree with everything Mike says since they seem to let him be the one doing all the defending of PFAL teachings and doctrine.
Those who really want to teach people about God, should, imo, use the Bible and take the things that they can prove are true according to what they believe and teach THAT and not some class that's half @$$ put together.
For the record, I have no beef with people who still subscribe to PFAL, it's their choice. I do have a beef with people who subscribe to it and attack those who don't, but refuse to discuss the actual topics taught.
[qoute]I don't recall anyone who mentions the people vee pee plagarized from stating that they were correct.
I seem to remember people saying that although vee pee plagarized from those people, that by the time vee pee had HIS finished product he had even seriously perverted the messages of those people.
I was going to answer you W.D. but Belle does a fine job here... it's HOW veepee wove all those things together to fit/fill his needs/desires...
Since WD appears to have missed it the first twenty times I've posted something like this.....here's the most recent and Mr. Strange seems to agree....as do Rascal and CW.
ONE EXAMPLE? ONE EXAMPLE, WD??
Come now....you know there's way more than ONE thing and ONE person vee pee stole his stuff from.....
Your argument has more holes in it than PFAL doctrine - not to mention that you totally ignore the invitation to actually discuss PFAL logic and actually discuss the merits of what you seem to believe to be true.
Your argument has more holes in it than PFAL doctrine
Actually not Belle! You can't explain even one eror in your point so you ask for more things to argue about? One is enough to prove it can't be both now isn't it ? Any error fails the test of truth.
Just because you MAY have ONE example of something vee pee stole and ended up teaching correctly, that does not prove in any way, shape or form that everything vee pee stole was taught correctly. I really thought you were smarter than that, WD. I really did. Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Besides that, I'm not even sure how much of Bullinger's stuff IS credible. :unsure: From what I understand, his works are considered to contain quite a bit of error by many Biblical scholars. *shrug* That blows another hole in your theory, too, though, doesn't it?
Besides that, I'm not even sure how much of Bullinger's stuff IS credible. :unsure: From what I understand, his works are considered to contain quite a bit of error by many Biblical scholars. *shrug* That blows another hole in your theory, too, though, doesn't it?
They will also attempt to avoid answering to these invitations to actually discuss PFAL teachings by attacking those who say PFAL is riddled with errors. They bring up other threads and other discussions about the source of PFAL data, but they will never discuss the actual teachings.
Belle... please direct your attention to the dictionary.com April 26, 2000 word of the day:
ob·fus·cate
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates
1) To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
2) To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.
Thank you, we now return you to our regularly scheduled program.
It really has nothing to do with being righteous. It is simply a matter of using truth found in a Bible class to better ones life.
I think the truth just popped over the horizon
It has nothing to do with righteousness
Using Truth found in a Bible class--
note it isn't said that the bible class was the truth but, rather, there there was truth in the class-- a BIG difference
So tell me , how much credence should be put in a class that is not wholly true and not about righteousness when we are talking about what God wants???
If VPW plagiarized Bullingers work on figures of speech then it would remain true regardless of which one said it. It does not change because VP says it. truth is truth it is not dependant on morality of the speaker,race,creed or color, denominational affiliation, or anything else it stands on it's own regardless of who speaks it.
Assuming Bullinger's work to be 100 percent true and that VPW added or subtracted nothing at all, then this would be true. I do not make these assumptions.
It can't be both plagiarized truth from Bullinger and VP's perverted truth morphing back n forth depending on the gripe
Sure it can, and here's how. Let's say someone wrote a small 20 page book on figures of speech and copied 10 pages word for word from Bullinger (plagairism). But the same author in the same small book takes some more information from Bullinger but changes (perverts) it slightlyto give it a different meaning than what Bullinger gave it.
We certainly have a plagiaized work. Ten pages are true to Bullinger's original and 10 pages borrowed from Bullinger, yet changed (perverted).
The fact that something is plagairized does not necessarily mean that 100 percent of the original meaning remains intact.
Just because you MAY have ONE example of something vee pee stole and ended up teaching correctly, that does not prove in any way, shape or form that everything vee pee stole was taught correctly.
NOT what I said Belle I said one day you can't accuse him of plagiarizing someones work and then the next say it is VP's perverted truth .
NOT what I said Belle I said one day you can't accuse him of plagiarizing someones work and then the next say it is VP's perverted truth .
I'm really amazed at your lack of logic and reasoning, WD. It's actually kind of sad. :(
vee pee plagarized people's work
Said work may or may not be correct, some of it obviously isn't
vee pee took some plagarized work (not all of the work he plagarized) and twisted that (that some) plagarized work to totally mean something different from what the plagarized work actually said.
If I plagarize your words - keep some words the way you actually said and meant them, then took some of your words and used them out of context or in such a way as to totally mean something you didn't plan to communicate then I did the same thing vee pee did.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend, much less admit?
Does anyone get what I'm saying? Is there a better way to communicate it? Maybe it's my fault for being able to clearly explain what I'm trying to say.....
Sure it can, and here's how. Let's say someone wrote a small 20 page book on figures of speech and copied 10 pages word for word from Bullinger (plagairism). But the same author in the same small book takes some more information from Bullinger but changes (perverts) it slightlyto give it a different meaning than what Bullinger gave it.
We certainly have a plagiaized work. Ten pages are true to Bullinger's original and 10 pages borrowed from Bullinger, yet changed (perverted).
The fact that something is plagairized does not necessarily mean that 100 percent of the original meaning remains intact.
You are correct in your example Goey but we were talking about the PFAL class not writing a new book. The work that was imported into the foundational class is consistent with Bullingers work. It was simply lifted from Bullingers books and placed in VP's class no change(perversion). In that context yes I believe that the original meaning remained intact. I suppose if you choose to believe in Bullingers work or not would be a personal choice, nobody's perfect but his work is recognized in the academic circles..
I'm not speaking for anyone else, but here's what I think:
Some of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized. Of that plagiarized material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. The original authors are no more infallible than Wierwille.
Some of what Wierwille taught was original. Of that original material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. Wierwille was not immune from being right, despite his moral failings. :o
Some of what Wierwille taught, while not plagiarized, is not strictly original either, but reworked from other sources.
Some plagiarized material was combined with other plagiarized material or with his own work to make a point that the original author was not making, sometimes this was deliberate, sometimes it betrays a lack of understanding by Wierwille of what the original author was trying to say.
Some of what Wierwille taught was based on definitions of words in biblical languages that cannot be backed up by any other sources, in other words he made them up. There are also claims of fact that are also apparently made up. This undermines much of what he taught, it being based on unsupportable foundations.
IMHO Wierwille had many moral failings and abused his position as a minister. He was a liar, a bully and a braggart. While none of this invalidates any truth that may be mixed in with the error, it does eliminate any benefit of the doubt anything he said or taught can be realistically given. And in order to accept PFAL as is, one has to accept much of what Wierwille says without documentation, simply because he says so. The man's character makes it foolish for anyone to take what he taught at face value.
Based on what is posted on GS (since I obviously don't know what goes on in people's lives outside of GS unless they choose to tell me) not a lot of questioning goes on in the minds of posters who still hold PFAL in high regard. If it does, it certainly isn't reflected in their posts.
Some of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized. Of that plagiarized material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. The original authors are no more infallible than Wierwille.
Some of what Wierwille taught was original. Of that original material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. Wierwille was not immune from being right, despite his moral failings.
Some of what Wierwille taught, while not plagiarized, is not strictly original either, but reworked from other sources.
Some plagiarized material was combined with other plagiarized material or with his own work to make a point that the original author was not making, sometimes this was deliberate, sometimes it betrays a lack of understanding by Wierwille of what the original author was trying to say.
Some of what Wierwille taught was based on definitions of words in biblical languages that cannot be backed up by any other sources, in other words he made them up. There are also claims of fact that are also apparently made up. This undermines much of what he taught, it being based on unsupportable foundations.
This much we agree on Oak
The man's character makes it foolish for anyone to take what he taught at face value.
Here is where we differ I just don't think that has anything to do with it. Biblical truth stands on it's own regardless of moral character ,obviously it makes it easier to accept with good moral character. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven. Truth is truth be it a priest or a thief who say's it.
Truth is truth be it a priest or a thief who say's it.
The Word talks about giving. The difference is if a godly man counsels you on giving, his goal is your edification; if a thief tells you to give, he is after your life's blood.
Proverbs 30:15 ¶The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
16
16
32
Popular Days
Mar 24
58
Mar 23
35
Mar 26
33
Mar 25
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 19 posts
Belle 16 posts
CoolWaters 16 posts
WhiteDove 32 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2006
58 posts
Mar 23 2006
35 posts
Mar 26 2006
33 posts
Mar 25 2006
23 posts
WhiteDove
Oak you can have as many as you want the point was , just be consistent in your logic it can't morph back n forth. Most would agree that the class was made up of mostly collected works of others. If VPW plagiarized Bullingers work on figures of speech then it would remain true regardless of which one said it. It does not change because VP says it. truth is truth it is not dependant on morality of the speaker,race,creed or color, denominational affiliation, or anything else it stands on it's own regardless of who speaks it. It can't be both plagiarized truth from Bullinger and VP's perverted truth morphing back n forth depending on the gripe
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Ummm.. It COULD, if after plagerizing truth from others..he perverted it with his own spin. Thus you have morphed perverted plagerized truth....makes sense to me :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
OHHHHHHHH! That kind of truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Sorry, Charlie - it's not going to happen. They will not debate PFAL because they can't. They can't prove or justify the teachings because they know that it's riddled with errors. What they will do, as you can clearly see, is attack those who question PFAL doctrine and change the subject as often and as much as they can.
They will also attempt to avoid answering to these invitations to actually discuss PFAL teachings by attacking those who say PFAL is riddled with errors. They bring up other threads and other discussions about the source of PFAL data, but they will never discuss the actual teachings.
I dunno, maybe they agree with everything Mike says since they seem to let him be the one doing all the defending of PFAL teachings and doctrine.
Those who really want to teach people about God, should, imo, use the Bible and take the things that they can prove are true according to what they believe and teach THAT and not some class that's half @$$ put together.
For the record, I have no beef with people who still subscribe to PFAL, it's their choice. I do have a beef with people who subscribe to it and attack those who don't, but refuse to discuss the actual topics taught.
IMO, their actions speak louder than their words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Nice try Rascal but the work on FOS are consitant between both speakers. So no (perverted it with his own spin) It has to be one or the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I was going to answer you W.D. but Belle does a fine job here... it's HOW veepee wove all those things together to fit/fill his needs/desires...
Since WD appears to have missed it the first twenty times I've posted something like this.....here's the most recent and Mr. Strange seems to agree....as do Rascal and CW.
ONE EXAMPLE? ONE EXAMPLE, WD??
Come now....you know there's way more than ONE thing and ONE person vee pee stole his stuff from.....
Your argument has more holes in it than PFAL doctrine - not to mention that you totally ignore the invitation to actually discuss PFAL logic and actually discuss the merits of what you seem to believe to be true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Actually not Belle! You can't explain even one eror in your point so you ask for more things to argue about? One is enough to prove it can't be both now isn't it ? Any error fails the test of truth.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
That is an illogic I do not subscribe to.
Just because you MAY have ONE example of something vee pee stole and ended up teaching correctly, that does not prove in any way, shape or form that everything vee pee stole was taught correctly. I really thought you were smarter than that, WD. I really did. Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Besides that, I'm not even sure how much of Bullinger's stuff IS credible. :unsure: From what I understand, his works are considered to contain quite a bit of error by many Biblical scholars. *shrug* That blows another hole in your theory, too, though, doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
I'm in a mood...can ya tell? LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Belle... please direct your attention to the dictionary.com April 26, 2000 word of the day:
ob·fus·cate
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates
1) To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth” (Robert Conquest).
2) To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.
Thank you, we now return you to our regularly scheduled program.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I think the truth just popped over the horizon
It has nothing to do with righteousness
Using Truth found in a Bible class--
note it isn't said that the bible class was the truth but, rather, there there was truth in the class-- a BIG difference
So tell me , how much credence should be put in a class that is not wholly true and not about righteousness when we are talking about what God wants???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Sure it can, and here's how. Let's say someone wrote a small 20 page book on figures of speech and copied 10 pages word for word from Bullinger (plagairism). But the same author in the same small book takes some more information from Bullinger but changes (perverts) it slightlyto give it a different meaning than what Bullinger gave it.
We certainly have a plagiaized work. Ten pages are true to Bullinger's original and 10 pages borrowed from Bullinger, yet changed (perverted).
The fact that something is plagairized does not necessarily mean that 100 percent of the original meaning remains intact.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Oldiesman,
As far as I know, anyone can order from LTA. Hope you hear from them soon.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
NOT what I said Belle I said one day you can't accuse him of plagiarizing someones work and then the next say it is VP's perverted truth .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I'm really amazed at your lack of logic and reasoning, WD. It's actually kind of sad. :(
vee pee plagarized people's work
Said work may or may not be correct, some of it obviously isn't
vee pee took some plagarized work (not all of the work he plagarized) and twisted that (that some) plagarized work to totally mean something different from what the plagarized work actually said.
If I plagarize your words - keep some words the way you actually said and meant them, then took some of your words and used them out of context or in such a way as to totally mean something you didn't plan to communicate then I did the same thing vee pee did.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend, much less admit?
Does anyone get what I'm saying? Is there a better way to communicate it? Maybe it's my fault for being able to clearly explain what I'm trying to say.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Sure it can, and here's how. Let's say someone wrote a small 20 page book on figures of speech and copied 10 pages word for word from Bullinger (plagairism). But the same author in the same small book takes some more information from Bullinger but changes (perverts) it slightlyto give it a different meaning than what Bullinger gave it.
We certainly have a plagiaized work. Ten pages are true to Bullinger's original and 10 pages borrowed from Bullinger, yet changed (perverted).
The fact that something is plagairized does not necessarily mean that 100 percent of the original meaning remains intact.
You are correct in your example Goey but we were talking about the PFAL class not writing a new book. The work that was imported into the foundational class is consistent with Bullingers work. It was simply lifted from Bullingers books and placed in VP's class no change(perversion). In that context yes I believe that the original meaning remained intact. I suppose if you choose to believe in Bullingers work or not would be a personal choice, nobody's perfect but his work is recognized in the academic circles..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
WD:
I'm not speaking for anyone else, but here's what I think:
IMHO Wierwille had many moral failings and abused his position as a minister. He was a liar, a bully and a braggart. While none of this invalidates any truth that may be mixed in with the error, it does eliminate any benefit of the doubt anything he said or taught can be realistically given. And in order to accept PFAL as is, one has to accept much of what Wierwille says without documentation, simply because he says so. The man's character makes it foolish for anyone to take what he taught at face value.
Based on what is posted on GS (since I obviously don't know what goes on in people's lives outside of GS unless they choose to tell me) not a lot of questioning goes on in the minds of posters who still hold PFAL in high regard. If it does, it certainly isn't reflected in their posts.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
my dear belle i agree with your every word
i just wish i could be smart enough to enter a conversation like this
but i do read them
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... I think it's awfully hard to convince a bird that he's a bird when he's convinced that he's a squirrel...
everybody is explaining it wonderfully... the bird still thinks he's a squirrel...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Squirrely birds, or birdly squirrels?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Here is where we differ I just don't think that has anything to do with it. Biblical truth stands on it's own regardless of moral character ,obviously it makes it easier to accept with good moral character. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven. Truth is truth be it a priest or a thief who say's it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
So, WD, why does the bible make such a big deal about character, then? Especially the character of those who have/take authority over God's people?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
The Word talks about giving. The difference is if a godly man counsels you on giving, his goal is your edification; if a thief tells you to give, he is after your life's blood.
Proverbs 30:15 ¶The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Sorry for the derail, but does anybody mind if I ask ....just what IS a horseleach?
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.