Raf

"Okay Lady." "Not 'Lady.' "Mom.'" "Okay, Lady, I love you, buh-bye."

Lifted Up: I think we're getting semantical in the distinction here: the end result is the same. If I reject everything VPW taught and evaluate what I'm going to let back in, or filter out everything VPW taught and keep only those things I think are valuable and worth keeping, the end result is identical: I keep what I think is right and reject what I think is wrong. It's the NEXT STEP in both cases that makes the two options identical. REJECT ALL: Re-admit some. REJECT SOME: Retain some. Either way, the same stuff ends up rejected and the same stuff ends up retained. Pick your method. Whatever makes you happier. What DIFFERENCE does it make, so long as you're being honest with yourself?

Dude, stick to one analogy at a time. You've got a fraudulent piece of artwork hanging in your living room and you're talking about lunch. How about going to MacDonald's for a Fillet-o-fish. It's boneless.

It was often that funny, but no, no Marx Brothers. MUCH more recent.

Victor Paul Wierwille taught truth mixed with comically bad and tragically bad error. The Mona Lisa doesn't have a mustache. Her hair was not red. The painting you have in your living room is a fake. You're pointing to it as great art. You can't even SEE that it's a forgery. Here's my suggestion: Toss it, and begin a new search for the Mona Lisa. You'll be glad you did. Everything in the fake that was worth salvaging will be in the real Mona Lisa that you find.

Thanks for providing the link. I stand by what I said then and it doesn't conflict with what I say now. They're perfectly consistent. "Better to reject..." The word "better" means I'm comparing one method to another. What are the methods? Starting a search from scratch compared to using VPW as a reference point. What would be better? Starting from scratch. However, that does not conflict with what I said earlier, that "starting from scratch" is not something that's particularly practical. Hey, if you can do it, great, it would be better. But I can no more unlearn what VPW taught than I can unlearn how to ride a bicycle. So I emulate "starting from scratch" by disregarding VPW as the author/writer/presenter of whatever doctrine I happen to be reviewing. the effect is the same: I have rejected him as an authority, and resume my search for the truth disregarding his input. If he taught something and I conclude through my own research he was right, to God be the glory. If he taught something and I conclude through my own research that he was wrong, to God be the glory. And I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with taking my entire VPW collection to the town dump and lighting a match to it. I no longer feel any need to pore over his presentations for any valuable purpose, because any value that comes from "his" books or tapes will come from elsewhere. However, I also see no particular need to take all his stuff to the dump either. It's valuable to me in evaluating my own thought process to go over what has influenced my thought process in the past. So: toss out all his stuff and start from scratch. Go through all his stuff and weed out what you want to keep and what you want to toss. End result is the same: you've removed VPW as an authority. Bad analogy. Try this instead: If you had what you thought was the Mona Lisa hanging in your living room for 20 years, then you find out that the person you bought it from was actually not DaVinci but D'Olmeda, and that the real Mona Lisa did not have red hair and was not missing a tooth, and that the background of the painting should not have a Warner Bros. watermark, would you still value the painting as a priceless work of art?

Could I get a link to where I said that last year? I want to check the context before I respond. I will say, however, that I never claimed to be God-breathed and can certainly adjust my thinking. I can also say that both statements I made are true. They do not contradict each other at all. Just because it would be better to do one thing doesn't mean it would be ineffective to do something else. Frankly, I can no more erase the existence and teaching of VPW from my head after accepting it in general for more than a decade than I can erase my ability to ride a bike. I learned it. Now, I can learn more, and adjust and adapt, but I can't unlearn something. I can forget something I've learned, but not intentionally. I can "reject" what I've learned, but that would require replacing it with something else in most cases. Whatever.

Wanna hear a knock-knock joke? Ok. Knock-knock. Who's there? Max. Max who? Max wants to come in an' go crazy. See, that's not funny because it's not really a joke. It is if you know Max. But I DON'T know Max. If you did you'd be laughin'. ***** "Um, it's not that we wouldn't like to take your survey..." "It's more like we'd rather have dental surgery." ***** "Folks, we'll paint your ceiling for only $19.95. Right. How do we do it? No overhead. When we're done, you'll have nothing overhead. You hire us, you have nothing in your head. We paint ceilings, ceilings, and only ceilings. We don't do floors 'cause they're beneath us." ***** "There you go, that's our solar system." "You forgot Uranus." "Good NIGHT, everybody."

That was right?

Obviously something with time travel. I'd guess Voyagers

Yeah. For years I was in the "so what" crowd, and to a large extent (this will shock many) I still am. I think what he did was dishonest and self-promoting, but I have for so long separated what was taught from who taught it that the undeniable fact of his plagiarism doesn't make me lose much sleep. Truth is truth, error is error, and the works published under his name contained both. In seeking to be a better Christian, I read a bunch of stuff and I try to discern prayerfully what fits and what doesn't. I question, I debate, I discuss: I try to learn. But I pay little attention to authorship until and unless it becomes an issue; then I try to follow Biblical directives to watch out for "wolves on sheeps' clothing." Was Wierwille a wolf in sheeps' clothing (no offense intended toward wolves)? Yup. I think his behavior proved that. I admire some of the clothing, though. Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. I know I read that somewhere. :)

Ayup.

Nope. Okay, let's make it easy: "Who does this guy think he is, Ferris Bueller?"

Cool. Coolness.

Is this The Office? Nah, too late. Drew Carey?

Nah. Just the worst movie ever (according to people who never saw The Adjuster. Or Traxx).

What inadvertent? Casual, maybe, but not inadvertent. Mike, come on back. Say whatever you want. You won't hear me arguing with you anymore. I think you and I have made our opposition to each other clear.

Can't argue for why. I don't know why. I can speculate: it certainly makes him look better if he wrote all he claimed to write. He slapped his name on the covers of the books. He copyrighted them. He was certainly concerned about taking credit. Why he was not as concerned about properly giving credit is beyond me. The BEST I can say is he was sloppy. The worst? Well, I don't need to judge him. He plagiarized. Period. Does it matter? That's up to the individual.

To my way of thinking, and I've run out of patience for disagreement on this, sorry, there are only two approaches to VPW's plagiarism: 1. He did it and it affects my opinion of him with regard to his honesty and integrity. OR 2. He did it and I don't care because the content is more important than the source (the God-told-him-to-plagiarize-because-it-was-HIS-word crowd falls into this category). Any viewpoint that starts with "he didn't plagiarize" stems from ignorance or denial, for the fact of his plagiarism is as indisputable as the fact of my present ability to breathe. The single most explicit example of plagiarism that I have found in VPW's writing is in RTHST, the chapter with frequently asked questions (I forget the title of the chapter). His Question 8 and the answer are so close to JE Stiles Question 8 and answer that the plagiarism is simply inescapable. I doubt very highly that Wierwille ever referred to anyone as a "faith blaster" for believing one could receive a "false tongue." It's just not a term Wierwille would use. It's inconsistent with his presentation on faith and believing: he would have referred to those people as "believing blasters." Yet there it is, Wierwille calling those people the exact same thing Stiles called such people! Hmm... and look around at the context. Stiles says: "When people ask that question, we know that they have somewhere come in contact with one of these 'faith blasters' who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture." While Wierwille says: "When people ask that question, I know that they have somewhere come in contact with one of these faith blasters who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture." Wierwille didn't even have the decency to fix Stiles's bad grammar (it should be "statements that," not "statements which"). There is a big difference between two people teaching the same thing and one person lifting another's words. Yes, there is such a thing as accidental plagiarism, where you forget you read something somewhere and you write it down as though you yourself just had a brilliant thought, not remembering its source. Wierwille's plagiarism was far too rampant to dismiss on this basis. He plagiarized routinely. I spotted one chapter in Order My Steps In Thy Word in which Wierwille flagrantly plagiarizes E.W. Kenyon, then properly cites Kenyon for a very lengthy quote. I would refer to Wierwille as a reckless plagiarist. He did it so routinely that it didn't matter to him that the words "By Victor Paul Wierwille" on the covers of his books were meaningless. JCOPS, JCING and JCOP all proved that Wierwille could cite his sources and not ruin the flow of his books or cause confusion for his readers. His other books all proved that he either didn't care or deliberately chose to take credit for the observations and conclusions of other writers. I think there were clear instances of both (deliberate choice with regards to Bullinger, reckless disregard with regards to much of Kenyon). If this influences your opinion of Wierwille as a teacher and as a walking Christian, so be it. If you couldn't care less, I can't make you care, so, so be it. But if you can honestly look me in the eye and tell me this man was not a plagiarist, the only thing you've done is prove to me that you are ignorant to the meaning of plagiarism or in intentional denial about your hero's infraction. It ain't a matter of whether or not he plagiarized. It's only a matter of whether or not you care. IMHO.

You're right. It is ludicrous. He also destroyed his own life. Thanks for clarifying! MIKE! Welcome back, man!

First, let me apologize. That post of mine wasn't a post. It was a puke. I just need to relax, take a valium or something. Will post more later. But lone Wolf, if you're as reasonable as you appear, then my post was uncalled for and I'm sorry. I'm going to go wash my mouth out with soap now. :)

VPW didn't steal anyone's ideas/words/etc. The moon is made of green cheese. The moon landing was a hoax. Elvis lives. The Holocaust didn't happen. The Earth is flat. Black is white. Up is down. I'm tired of trying to establish the obvious to MOG-worshippers who refuse to open their eyes. If you want to say "so what," then say it. But to deny what Wierwille did is to go from lack of concern to lack of discernment. P.S. Full Circle, look a little more carefully at Mr. P's post. You directed your comment to the wrong person. :)

And since I KNOW I'm right and will go on vacation after this, I'll leave you with a fairly easy one. "It sounds like Uncle Jesse and Aunt Becky just want some privacy." "What's privacy?" "It means they want to spend time together alone." "What are they doing in there?" "They're, uh... they're doing their taxes." "Are they going to do their taxes every night?" "For the first couple of months."

Ah, but you left one out. First of all, would Danny ever tell that to his kid? I don't think so. Roseanne, on the other hand...

Sorry. Another one of my business trips. You are correct.