Bolshevik

Do think they over-spiritualized a lot of it? Cause there's too much spiritual, too little spiritual, and spiritual that is just right. But if you go too far, just cite the spiritual anger. Cause that way everyone else can be responsible for how you're feeling. Not that you're feeling, cause that's senses realm, not spiritual.

"We've got to see things from God's perspective. It's a spiritual competition" The goal post are wherever I need them to be. You may applaud my efforts now.

"Walk by the spirit, not by sight", "God's Way or the World's", "be spiritually aware", "SIT until you don't recognize yourself" --> "Practice habitual lying until you reach a state delusional paranoia, learn to become comfortable in this altered consciousness by deciding it's everyone else who is in the wrong"

Part of our mind always works for the sake of efficiency so we don't have to think about absolutely everthing all the time, because we can't. If a word like "leader" is said our mind recalls what a leader is and puts the referred-to person under the understanding of a "leader" immediately. Our mind will then interpret the person's actions with the extra importance we'd naturally give a leader. A person could focus their on this and note that something doesn't seem right and begin to question the validity of the term given. However if many terms are thrown at you at once it may seem like a lot of work, because it is. There may a social cost to stop after every word and admit to everyone "I don't know WTF is going on, please explain." So often we all just role with it. And when we do that we may be less likely to question it later.

"not worth their salt" or, "socially shun this person to finish their Kool-Aid."

"not spiritually mature enough" - or, "still hasn't finished their first glass of Kool-Aid."

As far as I know you've changed the topic so much the thread got moved to a completely different forum. The only evidence you've expressed as to why VPW's plagiarism should be given a pass or simple slap on the wrist is that YOU were blessed. The same reasoning as any damned Wayfer. Which is the same argument as saying you got drunk, unknowingly ran over an entire family, and should be let go because you were just having a good time.

Sure there's murkiness. That's a given. How do we decide ownership and where does that idea originate? The idea of ownership clearly exists. Therefore concept of stealing clearly exists. Therefore concept of plagiarism clearly exists. How do we decide who has violated one of these concepts and how? I tend to think these ideas are created in the context of a group. Between the relationships of many people or even just two. From your texts I gather your definitions arise from a single individual. Definitions that do not include all parties involved.

From my own experience to be blessed in TWI is a COMMAND by verbal or physical or emotional coercion. You are told to be blessed. You are then told to be inspired from being blessed and this is called free will giving. If VPW actually produced something that genuinely blessed anyone, I doubt a huge amount of effort would go into discussing plagiarism. It would mostly be shrugged off.

VPW made the claim that Bullinger and Kenyon and Stiles and others received revelation for their works. VPW made the claim he recieved revelation to use their works nearly verbatim. I'm just trying to be clear on this understanding. It is VPW who originally made all these claims?

Who claims who received revelation for their works? Did Kenyon or Bullinger or Stiles make that claim? Did VPW? Or does just Mike claim that they all did?

Yes. The thread is about how common it is, as well as related behavior. Rome grew by stealing other nations and their ideas. I think Mike's idea that the ability to take from another means God is on your side is an ancient one.

Are the works of Bullinger and Kenyon examples of the primary revelation? (I'm assuming that is what is meant) Cause wasn't the Bible itself revelation? And didn't it get written over thousands of years? Each new book is like secondary, tertiary, dodeca-ary revalation. So shouldn't all that revelation be added to this nice rainbow: http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/BibleViz

It appears you are conflating "assumption" and "perspective". And I get what your view is. But, I know that God (in the case of religious but spiritually blind copyright laws and procedures) can certainly see when and where unbelievers may try to interfere with His re-distribution plans, and can intervene to protect. He artfully dodges any subpoena the blind religious copyright defenders may issue Him, and He just befuddles their efforts to interfere with His plans. That's what happened with VPW. He clearly got away with it, scott free. God won. VPW made a Christ-like "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do" sacrifice by plagiarizing? This the hand of protection argument that was so common. Smacks of The Law of Believing.

I think you just said no it's not plagiarism but yes it is but no it's not but yes it is but no, it's not. There's that one sentence there (in bold) that seems to me to transcend plagiarism itself. You're stating God as a higher authority than people. But you're using it as a way for people not to recognize each other as equals. Of course you'll argue God gave a person revelation, but how could anyone prove that except through blind acceptance?

I discover a cure for a disease after years of hard work. It could save many. I do nothing with it. Who does this cure belong to? The universe is full of information. Does a valued piece of information belong to the first discoverer? Or the first to be acknowledged? The first to show it's importance? The first to apply it in a way that helps others?

And the counterargument would be . . . To what end? VPW hurt far, far more than helped anyone.

So Mike is arguing that plagiarism is okay because it was given by revelation? That makes VPW's stealing different than the stealing we see everyday?

http://alcoholrehab.com/drug-addiction/petrol-sniffing-gasoline-sniffing/

Did nobody nail me for not citing a source? http://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/BibleViz

Of course if PFAL was given by revelation like the Bible was I'm sure it would fit into the about image very nicely. Maybe another poster could begin that work in order to present some solid evidence of this.

This image represents ways in which the Bible refers back to itself. "it is written" and soforth. Squint your eyes it's quite detailed. Did Bible writers plagiarize? I mean, that's a lot of people over a lot of time writing the most successful book in history, maybe.

When I google Joyce Meyer if find arguments on Word Faith / Positive thinking AKA The Law of Believing.

VPW may have copied the works but he brought it to everyone is the Wayfer retort. Prevailing Word over the World. Or something. Golly gee I'm so thankful.