Raf

I'm willing to discuss it. Garth?

Hey Garth, what do you think of these guys?

Isn't that costly? Plus I'd never be able to turn my computer off?

Great. Now not only are MY sites down, but Garth's site is down and the web page for the company we complain to is down as well. My 7th grade grammar teacher would kill me over that last sentence, but I simply don't care. :)--> Post Script: Let's see, that meltdown lasted about 30 minutes. Dem Bums. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on November 13, 2003 at 20:03.]

MegaDittos. :)--> Oldies, would you tolerate plagiarism and serial adultery from any other minister?

How do you know what software I'm using when I don't?

You are on the same page as other folks. Just not ALL other folks. Have you considered that you can praise God for every positive thing that happened in your life while simultaneously recognizing that VPW dishonestly presented other people's work as his own AND abused his position in the Body for his own perverse lusts (sexual and otherwise)?

I don't hate VPW. But I used to respect him and his legacy. I no longer do. He ran a Biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry. His "research" was largely stolen. His teaching was no better than 90% of pastors I've heard since then. And his fellowship was predatory. No, I don't hate him. Nor do I "like" him. To the extent that he indirectly led me to a better understanding of and appreciation for God, I'm grateful - TO GOD.

Oldiesman, I should clarify my response to your last post. I've always said the question of plagiarism falls into two categories. 1. Did Wierwille plagiarize? 2. What difference does it make? I understand that people harbor a wide variety of responses to the second question. If you really think plagiarism doesn't matter, I'm generally not going to argue the point with you. But to me, the answer to the FIRST question is inescapable. On this subject, I usually only get heated over the answer to the FIRST question because, frankly, anyone who doesn't see Wierwille's plagiarism is simply in denial. So Oldiesman, if the Kenyon Gospel Publishing folk are content to see their author's work with someone else's byline, that's their business. I don't agree with them in the slightest: I don't think Kenyon would have been happy seeing his EXACT WORDS pilfered by an unscrupulous author whose photographic memory somehow fails to include the name on the book he's reading. Concepts, yes. Kenyon would be thrilled to know that people are teaching on the difference between believing and mental assent, teaching on spiritual versus sense knowledge, teaching on the believer's power of attorney. But I've always said "teaching the same thing" is not plagiarism. As Hagin said, if you teach on the new birth, and I teach on the new birth, we are of necessity going to cover the same ground. That's different from plagiarism, of which both Hagin and Wierwille are, in my opinion, guilty.

Save it for the politics thread, commie pinkos! :D-->

Okay, I'll say it... Am I the only one who thought this thread was about something else entirely?

Umm, thanks Steve. I may never be able to look at the Web site the same way again.

Dang. It went down AGAIN!

No Jerry, It doesn't make me "wonder" at all.

Oldiesman, With all due respect, HORSEHOCKEY. Look carefully at what's written there: "From his vantage point in heaven, Kenyon is probably delighted." PROBABLY delighted? Actually, in my belief, Kenyon would probably be infuriated. Which one of us is right? We cannot know because such a statement is BASELESS SPECULATION. To take the next step and say "If Kenyon himself wouldn't have been bothered, why should anyone else" is a logical fallacy. IF my BASELESS SPECULATION is true, why should you have a problem with the flagrant theft Kenyon's works? It's barely worthy of a response. From this site. Now get this: tell me if it doesn't sound familiar. The emphasis in that last paragraph was mine because he said "we may use different words to express it" when, in fact, he's not using different words at all. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on November 11, 2003 at 18:19.]

Dot, The Word-Faith movement is that family of believers who teach things like "the law of believing," "name it and claim it," etc. Stuff that reminds you of Wierwille when you hear it from the likes of Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland and KC Price... It reminds you of Wierwille because they all rely on the same source: EW Kenyon. Without a doubt, Wierwille plagiarized Kenyon. But Wierwille was a veritable gentleman and scholar compared to the level of plagiarism of Kenyon by Kenneth Hagin. Wierwille wasn't alone.

JSN, The Living Epistles Society site is the one I'm complaining about. I've had problems with the other stie, too, but not nearly as severe. Garth, Thanks. I thought it was just me. :(-->

Check it out: I'm not quoting Wierwille again. Specifically, I'm not quoting Living Victoriously, pages 150-151 If you think VPW plagiarized Leonard, you should see what he did to Kenyon.

E.W. Kenyon, the true father of the Word-Faith movement.

Leonard was there? Interesting. Hey everyone, get this: Remember, I'm not quoting VPW at all, not a single word. I want you to remember that while reading pgs. 35-41 of the Green Book. Mind you, I did not quote the Green Book a single time.

Garth, Any idea why my web site keeps freezing? You use the same host, right? Do you experience the same problems? (if you see an image below, my site is up. If you see an x, it's not). Raf

Dot, That was my last post to Oldiesman before he went on some kind of cafe hiatus. If you'll recall, I made reference to that earlier on this thread when I told him that similarities prove plagiarism regardless of dissimilarities that may also exist. This time he responded that I'd made a good point and he's considering it. I don't think, if he's being honest, that he'll come to a conclusion different from mine. But I have to sit back and let him reach that conclusion on his own.

Deleting my post here to stay on topic.

Oldies, Dot, Thank you both for enduring my nanny-complex. I apologize for the derail, Dot. I'm trying to find the Kenyon chapter from which Wierwille lifted "How to Be a Christian" from the green book. Some obvious ripoffs there.

Oldiesman, Do you see where Dot may have a point? I've seen some evolution in your thought on a lot of matters. I've seen an open mind and heart. You don't have to agree with her conclusions necessarily, but is she really all wrong, particularly about you? I'm not saying yes or no either way, but what do you think? If she's misinterpreting you, now's the chance to set the record straight. But if she's right... I leave the conclusion of that sentence to you. Dot, I didn't jump on Oldiesman because I knew others would. I apologize if it looked like I'm picking on you. Far be it from me to tell people to stop squabbling :)--> ! The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, PATIENCE, gentleness, goodness, meekness, self control, I left one out because I'm trying to remember off the top of my head. So Oldiesman, next time you feel the need to mention someone's halitosis, just ask yourself which fruit of the spirit you're trying to exhibit. (I wish I took my own advice more often, but hey, I never claimed to be perfect. Or to see an invisible snowstorm.)