I believe that it was Dr. Higgins, the osteopath from Chicago, who introduced Wierwill to Bullinger. Rinker was the Korean missionary who suggested he teach people about the abundant life.
Stub1:
While some of Wierwille's books contain footnotes and give credit, notably JCOP, JCOPS, and some in JCING, there are none in PFAL (the book), RHST, CSBP or any of the "collaterals".
The "credit" that Wierwille gave to Stiles, Leonard and Bullinger was:
Mentioning that Stiles led him into tongues. Period
Mentioning that he twice attended Leonard's class in Calgary, deriding it as long on experience and short on doctrine
Claiming that he found out about Bullinger after he had come to the same conclusions himself
All of these mentions were outside of his classes, and not included in his books, nor is there any hint at the wholesdale copying of these men's works.
I believe that it was Dr. Higgins, the osteopath from Chicago, who introduced Wierwill to Bullinger. Rinker was the Korean missionary who suggested he teach people about the abundant life.
Whoops-that is correct, sir!
Stub1:
While some of Wierwille's books contain footnotes and give credit, notably JCOP, JCOPS, and some in JCING, there are none in PFAL (the book), RHST, CSBP or any of the "collaterals".
The "credit" that Wierwille gave to Stiles, Leonard and Bullinger was:
Mentioning that Stiles led him into tongues. Period
Mentioning that he twice attended Leonard's class in Calgary, deriding it as long on experience and short on doctrine
Claiming that he found out about Bullinger after he had come to the same conclusions himself
All of these mentions were outside of his classes, and not included in his books, nor is there any hint at the wholesdale copying of these men's works.
To be specific, he also said Leonard was good with experiences (and vpw derided experience often)
but not with The Word.
And H1ggins supposedly gave him his Bullinger stuff: "he writes like you teach."
I also "thought" vp gave credit because he talked about doing so, but upon reading the "credit" he actually gave, it paled in comparison to giving credit where credit was due.
Also regarding the "credit" given on the JCOP and JCNG, it does not say, as Wordwolf clearly does, that the research team did the work and vp put his name on it, or "edited" it.
Also, after the research team fell out of favor, their names were omitted from the credits in latter editions. (Even being 100% in twi and blind to any other way of thinking, I thought that was not right.)
When it comes to VPW and plagiarism, it is easier to list what VP did not steal than what he did. The monograph by Juedes and Valusek "Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?" quotes several examples of plagiarim, with the original author in 1 column and VP in the column next to it. Here are examples in addition to Stiles and RTHST:
+ EW Kenyon, the Father and His Family --- VP How to Be a Christian (New Dynamic Church)
+ EW Bullinger, Selected Writings , How to Enjoy the Buble --- VP, Are the Dead Alive Now
+ Bullinger, The Knowledge of God --- VP, The Counsel of the Lord (The Bible Tells Me So)
+ Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible --- VP, Rediscovering Figures of Speech (The Way Mag 1984)
+ Bullinger, How to Enjoy the Bible --- VP, Search the Scriptures (TWM 1984)
+ Bullinger, The Church Epistles --- VP, God's Magnified Word
+ Bullinger, The Giver and His Gifts --- VP, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today
In the case of RTHST, almost the whole book was stolen from Stiles and Bullinger. Juedes also wrote a parallel column comparison showing which chapters were stolen from which authors. RTHST "grew" as he found more authors to steal from, which is obvious if you compare early editions of RTSHT.
It's also clear VP plagiarized from the very beginning (1953 at least) to the very end of his life (1984), a life long lie.
Plagiarism isn't just "learning" from people. It's quoting or paraphrasing them in a book or article without citing the source. The lie is that people think you're an originator instead of a copier. He would have been fired from an faculty; instead he's admired and nearly worshiped by many.
Personally, I have tremendous respect and admiration for Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. There are times, I must admit, when I stand in absolute and utter amazement at what he has written to us and for us in book and magazine form. It truly is the accuracy of God's Word.
Yesterday was his birthday. Were he still living he would be 90 years old. Quess Uncle Harry was right. Life, even at the longest, is short.
Last evening, as I was grilling a steak and nursing a soda pop, I reflected on his life and mine. Thought about how thankful I am to once again be working the Truth of God's Word into my heart and life.
When it comes to VPW and plagiarism, it is easier to list what VP did not steal than what he did. The monograph by Juedes and Valusek "Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?" quotes several examples of plagiarim, with the original author in 1 column and VP in the column next to it. Here are examples in addition to Stiles and RTHST:
+ EW Kenyon, the Father and His Family --- VP How to Be a Christian (New Dynamic Church)
+ EW Bullinger, Selected Writings , How to Enjoy the Buble --- VP, Are the Dead Alive Now
+ Bullinger, The Knowledge of God --- VP, The Counsel of the Lord (The Bible Tells Me So)
+ Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible --- VP, Rediscovering Figures of Speech (The Way Mag 1984)
+ Bullinger, How to Enjoy the Bible --- VP, Search the Scriptures (TWM 1984)
+ Bullinger, The Church Epistles --- VP, God's Magnified Word
+ Bullinger, The Giver and His Gifts --- VP, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today
"Are the Dead Alive Now?" was from books like
""The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and
"Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?",
complete with the question format.
In the case of RTHST, almost the whole book was stolen from Stiles and Bullinger. Juedes also wrote a parallel column comparison showing which chapters were stolen from which authors. RTHST "grew" as he found more authors to steal from, which is obvious if you compare early editions of RTSHT.
It's also clear VP plagiarized from the very beginning (1953 at least) to the very end of his life (1984), a life long lie.
Plagiarism isn't just "learning" from people. It's quoting or paraphrasing them in a book or article without citing the source. The lie is that people think you're an originator instead of a copier. He would have been fired from an faculty; instead he's admired and nearly worshiped by many.
Those of you who haven't read it recently should read this now...
Personally, I have tremendous respect and admiration for Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. There are times, I must admit, when I stand in absolute and utter amazement at what he has written to us and for us in book and magazine form. It truly is the accuracy of God's Word.
It was all photocopied from the works of others.
Are you in awe of his xerox machine?
He warmed himself at a fire he did not burn,
and sold a product-taking credit for it- that he stole from others.
Yesterday was his birthday. Were he still living he would be 90 years old. Quess Uncle Harry was right. Life, even at the longest, is short.
Guess he should have heeded some of his own speeches to the corps about
self-control, moderation or temperance. If he had, he would have taken in
far less tobacco and alcohol than he did,
which would have meant he wouldn't have caught cancer-
at least as young as he did-
and he might have lived to 90.
He was rather big on "do as I say and not as I do",
and was brilliant at manipulating his PUBLIC image.
That's why so many people who never interacted with him daily
remember him as FAR more dignified, far more temperate,
far less of an abuser of people, than others remember him-
those who DID spend time with him.
Last evening, as I was grilling a steak and nursing a soda pop, I reflected on his life and mine. Thought about how thankful I am to once again be working the Truth of God's Word into my heart and life.
Is Jesus Christ God? Of course not!
Feel free to be thankful to be working God's Word.
And remember that God Almighty is greater than any book containing His Words,
and greater than any person, class, book, or recording medium used to teach it.
You also might want to check and see if people knew things you didn't.
Even lcm's own reports of vpw reveal him as abusive of others.
The monograph by Juedes and Valusek "Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?" quotes several examples of plagiarim,
Sorry for OT, but I'm pretty sure the "Valusek" is none other than Jay, a high-school mate. I can't remember if I got him into the Way or not. If it was me, please tell him I'm sorry.
VPW's blatant plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty were just the tip of the iceberg considering his wholesale debauchery. Anybody that argues that what he taught is "truth" deserves the spoilage that bad leaven will cause...
I don't believe that you can say "of course not" around here...there are a number of people on this board who recognize this element of heresy for what it was: just another ripoff. This one from Arius.
When I read Dr. Wierwille it’s as if the Heavenly Father Himself is speaking to me personally.
Sometimes, when I’m reading, I picture in my mind that I’m in the library of a large, elegant mansion. There’s a well laid fire and I’m comfortable in a finely upholstered wingback chair. Perhaps I’m sipping a rare single malt whiskey as well. In another wing back nearby sits the Lord Jesus Christ himself. We’re discussing the inherent accuracy of God’s wonderful, matchless Word.
He shows me, for example, how a particular passage from JCNG works and fits with one from RHST. Perhaps an article of Dr.’s from The Way Magazine (remember, ‘the magazine for people who Love God and His Word?) sheds some further light on our subject. It becomes dynamically thrilling and my heart burns within as the truth of God’s Word is opened to me.
Yes, I am genuinely thankful for Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. Thankful for his life and his work.
In fact, I’m a little antsy for that trumpet to sound because I’d like to go hunting and fishing with Victor.
Waysider, it’s not a sensation really. It’s just something I have pictured in my mind on occasion.
I don’t get real excited about those guys although Kenyon is interesting especially when Dr. quotes him as he does in Living in God’s Living Room, WM 09/10-80 and God’s Blueprint of Creation, Vol. V.
Linda Z, as for you my dear, I’d love to get a gander at those gorgeous gams. Pulling them however is out of the question. Well, maybe, if you insist.
When I was just a tyke of about 5 or 6, I desperately wanted a pony, not just any pony but a palamino pony. I guess it never occurred to me that kids in the inner city don't make good pony owners. One day I was outside playing "broomstick cowboy" with the little girl who lived a few doors down. As we looked toward the end of our block, out of nowhere we saw the most beautiful palamino pony gallop around the corner with his golden tale waving in the wind. We ran to the end of the block just in time to see him round the next corner. Again we chased him and had the same result. Our pursuit ended when we wound up where we started. Of course, there never was any pony but we wanted more than anything for our experience to be real.
WW, LG is correct, and I'd hardly characterize him as a VPW apologist. I'd call him objective.
VPW had ocular melanoma, which frequently metastasizes to the liver and, when it does, often causes death. It didn't start in his liver and spread to his eye, but vice versa. This is significant, because different types of cancers have different, specific secondary sites they spread to.
A major risk factor for ocular (uveal) melanoma is overexposure to ultraviolet light. I read one study in which welders, for example, were found to have a high rate of this particular cancer. David Anderson, who is far, far from a VPW apologist, was involved in the filming of PFAL and attests to the fact that VPW's eyes were severely burned during the filming by the bright lights used on the set. People with blue eyes and fair hair, such as VPW, are also more vulnterable to ocular cancer.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with defending VPW and everything to do with keeping the facts straight.
VPW had ocular melanoma, which frequently metastasizes to the liver and, when it does, often causes death. It didn't start in his liver and spread to his eye, but vice versa. This is significant, because different types of cancers have different, specific secondary sites they spread to.
I'll take your word for it concerning where it started and where it spread.
A major risk factor for ocular (uveal) melanoma is overexposure to ultraviolet light. I read one study in which welders, for example, were found to have a high rate of this particular cancer.
They're also prone to permanent eye damage if they don't wear their welder's mask.
David Anderson, who is far, far from a VPW apologist, was involved in the filming of PFAL and attests to the fact that VPW's eyes were severely burned during the filming by the bright lights used on the set. People with blue eyes and fair hair, such as VPW, are also more vulnterable to ocular cancer.
Correlation does not equal causation.
We know he exposed himself to bright lights over a 2-week period,
that he smoked and drank a lot over a few decades,
and that he went to the bathroom on a regular basis.
We know he later got cancer and died.
Some, all, or none of those may relate to the cancer.
We can eliminate going to the bathroom as a cause, since it's not known to be one. (No pun intended.)
We can NOT eliminate over 20 years of smoking, since it's a known carcinogen.
As for vpw being genetically predisposed to ocular cancer if exposed to ultraviolet light,
I'll say "maybe". For the sake of the discussion, I'll even go with "sure".
That is not synonymous with saying "bright studio lights for 2 weeks in the early 70s is a
possible or even likely source of cancer a decade later."
If his eyes were THAT sensitive, they would have been endangered as much by the bright
sunlight on the farm. (I, personally, wore anti-UV sunglasses during the day out there.
Even on overcast days.)
He was exposed to bright studio lights for a period of 2 weeks.
If you have any studies suggesting bright studio lights are a cancer risk, please share.
I'm not aware of them giving off significant amounts of UV light unless your studio is
doubling as a tanning salon and uses UV bulbs (which are LESS bright in the visible
spectrum and are unsuitable for filming.)
I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that he hurt his eyes from bright studio lights.
I do NOT find it reasonable to believe that the same incident gave him cancer from
studio lights. Again, if you've got some hard science, please present it.
So,
perhaps he was vulnerable to eye problems in general regardless, due to a genetic
predisposition. Perhaps he might even gotten eye cancer and died before now even
if he'd lived an ascetic life as a farmer who never smoked or drank. Cancer doesn't
follow a neat formula.
However,
I stand behind my statement that he placed himself at needless risk for cancer by
exposing his immune system to large amounts of alcohol over a long period of time,
and to constant amounts of a KNOWN cancer-causing agent over a long period of time.
Would smoking cigars and cigarettes lead to an eye-cancer?
Sure. The tissues of the eye are pretty porous to substances in the air.
Continual exposure to particles WILL affect them.
And if his eyes were VULNERABLE, as you say, then they might get cancer from
exposure faster than the more usual targets of the lungs, larynx, and so on.
Someone without that vulnerability might have gotten cancer a bit later,
and had throat surgery or something.
So,
I consider eye injuries during pfal to be indicative of eyes vulnerable to damage,
not the moment they were exposed to a cancer-causing agent.
(Unless someone can find me where studio lights kill people-
and LOTS of people get LOTS of studio light time. There should be a body count
from these things in Hollywood.)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with defending VPW and everything to do with keeping the facts straight.
And I'm equally concerned with trying to keep the facts straight, but we seem
I'll take your word for it concerning where it started and where it spread.
It's on the death certificate.
I suggest that you Google ocular melanoma risk factors. You won't find smoking or drinking listed. You will find fair hair, fair skin, occupational UV light exposure, and having had several eye burns.
+ plagiarized (stolen) material-- examples are given above in my earlier post; LOTS of it
+ chapters ghost written by other people for VP (which means he didn't write it himself)- like Chap 1 of JCNG, JCOP, etc. The intro of JCNG actually mentions the author of Chap 1, which was a real shock, because VP didn't like to credit others
+ stuff he made up on the fly. Most of the peripherals, magazine articles, plus much of JCNG were VP speaking off the cuff and people transcribing it for him. Really shallow stuff. For example, JCNG started as a tape (I think #295 or 299). If you listen to the tape, it's obvious he didn't put any research into it and was talking off the top of his head. If you read JCNG closely, it's also clear there (at least if you have any background in reading competent theological books) that it's really shallow and slipshod. There are very important passages that he sloughs off with just a couple of sentences. But listening to the tape is a real eye-opener. The tone of voice, the content, and everything are like a grade school kid telling his mom what he saw in the back yard that day, which is transcribed and passed off as a biology text. The shallowness on such a serious topic is disgusting. It's easy to produce voluminous "books" if you teach or preach a few times a week (as most pastors do) and have somebody to transcribe your teachings, preachings and/or ramblings.
Almost nothing is footnoted, except for some of the stuff other people wrote for him. The stuff VP babbled and plagiarized (which is most of it) has almost zero footnotes.
On another topic- it's true that VP got eye cancer first, and it spread to the liver. The death certificate can be found at www.abouttheway.org (it used to be www.abouttheway.com ) A friend of VP signed the certificate. While that may call into question its veracity, I would assume it is accurate nonetheless. In PFAL VP said that illness is caused by one's own negative believing. If VP's teaching on negative believing is true, then VP himself was a very negative believer and caused his own illness and death. I would have liked to see TWI be honest and either publically say that VP caused his own death (as VP said a mother caused the death of her child by being worried that he would have an accident), or else reject VP's teaching on this. But public honesty and transparency was never a habit of the upper levels of TWI.
My copy of the death certificate has no mention of the cancer starting in the eye and proceeding
to the liver, or vice versa-only that it was present in both places and was the cause of death.
So, I'm STILL taking Linda at her word that it did not start in the liver.
I suggest that you Google ocular melanoma risk factors. You won't find smoking or drinking listed. You will find fair hair, fair skin, occupational UV light exposure, and having had several eye burns.
I did a quick check.
Occupational UV light exposure is irrelevant to the discussion, since nobody's established that
vpw was ever exposed to UV lights. Oddly, I DID see one study that said that they didn't
find that normal outdoor exposure to sunlight increased the risk, which I would have expected.
(UV light is UV light.)
"Several" eye burns was also mentioned, but I'd need someone confirming "yes, when I said
'several eye burns', that could include bright studio lights."
As for smoking, I expect it's thought of as in the "no duh" category.
One quick search showed that cigarettes (with their lesser tobacco than cigars) are plenty
carcinogenic themselves:
"Tobacco smoke contains 43 known carcinogens, including a number of known organ specific carcinogens, and compounds which assist with the formation of carcinogens within the body. Carcinogens and carcinogenic metabolites are carried through the body in the bloodstream, following absorption through the lungs. Smoking also affects metabolism and enzyme activity, which may affect carcinogenesis."
So, tobacco giving you cancer of the ANYTHING doesn't sound unusual to me.
It's most commonly connected with cancers connected to the respiratory system
(and cigars with cancers of the lip or jaw), but it's been connected to plenty of other
You're not reading the death certificate correctly, WordWolf. For some reason, GS is one of only a couple of places I can get to on the Internet right now, so I can't quote, but it says something like metastatic melanoma of the liver as the cause of death and cites ocular melanoma as the primary (the initial site from which the cancer spread to the liver).
Okay, that odd glitch is gone and I can view the death certificate. It cites "Metastatic Melanoma of the Liver" as the cause of death. To the right of that, it indicates that the liver cancer was diagnosed about 1 month prior to death. On the next line, it cites the ocular melanoma, and to the right of that indicates that it was diagnosed about 18 months prior to death.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
69
62
127
Popular Days
Jul 6
142
Jul 4
63
Jul 2
54
Jul 5
48
Top Posters In This Topic
waysider 47 posts
Bolshevik 69 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 62 posts
rrobs 127 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2017
142 posts
Jul 4 2017
63 posts
Jul 2 2017
54 posts
Jul 5 2017
48 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"I find it interesting that everybody here attacks me personally. Nobody address the things I say about the word. You keep wanting to make it about VP. Nobody here really knows my thinking on VP or th
Grace Valerie Claire
Robs, I think you should STFU.
waysider
OOPS!
Oakspear
Wordwolf:
I believe that it was Dr. Higgins, the osteopath from Chicago, who introduced Wierwill to Bullinger. Rinker was the Korean missionary who suggested he teach people about the abundant life.
Stub1:
While some of Wierwille's books contain footnotes and give credit, notably JCOP, JCOPS, and some in JCING, there are none in PFAL (the book), RHST, CSBP or any of the "collaterals".
The "credit" that Wierwille gave to Stiles, Leonard and Bullinger was:
All of these mentions were outside of his classes, and not included in his books, nor is there any hint at the wholesdale copying of these men's works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Whoops-that is correct, sir!
To be specific, he also said Leonard was good with experiences (and vpw derided experience often)
but not with The Word.
And H1ggins supposedly gave him his Bullinger stuff: "he writes like you teach."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You should exercise it.
Try re-checking the books instead of relying on your clearly incomplete memory.
That Wierwille plagiarized is indisputable. The only argument is in trying to answer the question, "So what?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
I also "thought" vp gave credit because he talked about doing so, but upon reading the "credit" he actually gave, it paled in comparison to giving credit where credit was due.
Also regarding the "credit" given on the JCOP and JCNG, it does not say, as Wordwolf clearly does, that the research team did the work and vp put his name on it, or "edited" it.
Also, after the research team fell out of favor, their names were omitted from the credits in latter editions. (Even being 100% in twi and blind to any other way of thinking, I thought that was not right.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
When it comes to VPW and plagiarism, it is easier to list what VP did not steal than what he did. The monograph by Juedes and Valusek "Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?" quotes several examples of plagiarim, with the original author in 1 column and VP in the column next to it. Here are examples in addition to Stiles and RTHST:
+ EW Kenyon, the Father and His Family --- VP How to Be a Christian (New Dynamic Church)
+ EW Bullinger, Selected Writings , How to Enjoy the Buble --- VP, Are the Dead Alive Now
+ Bullinger, The Knowledge of God --- VP, The Counsel of the Lord (The Bible Tells Me So)
+ Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible --- VP, Rediscovering Figures of Speech (The Way Mag 1984)
+ Bullinger, How to Enjoy the Bible --- VP, Search the Scriptures (TWM 1984)
+ Bullinger, The Church Epistles --- VP, God's Magnified Word
+ Bullinger, The Giver and His Gifts --- VP, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today
In the case of RTHST, almost the whole book was stolen from Stiles and Bullinger. Juedes also wrote a parallel column comparison showing which chapters were stolen from which authors. RTHST "grew" as he found more authors to steal from, which is obvious if you compare early editions of RTSHT.
It's also clear VP plagiarized from the very beginning (1953 at least) to the very end of his life (1984), a life long lie.
Plagiarism isn't just "learning" from people. It's quoting or paraphrasing them in a book or article without citing the source. The lie is that people think you're an originator instead of a copier. He would have been fired from an faculty; instead he's admired and nearly worshiped by many.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trumpeter
Personally, I have tremendous respect and admiration for Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. There are times, I must admit, when I stand in absolute and utter amazement at what he has written to us and for us in book and magazine form. It truly is the accuracy of God's Word.
Yesterday was his birthday. Were he still living he would be 90 years old. Quess Uncle Harry was right. Life, even at the longest, is short.
Last evening, as I was grilling a steak and nursing a soda pop, I reflected on his life and mine. Thought about how thankful I am to once again be working the Truth of God's Word into my heart and life.
Is Jesus Christ God? Of course not!
Edited by trumpeterLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Remember the old Bill Cosby routine where God speaks to Noah and tells him to build an ark?
A booming voice comes from the sky and says:
"NOAH, Build me an ark!"
Noah pauses momentarily and responds:
"Riiiiiiiiight!----Who is this REALLY?"
I love that line
Riiiiiiiiiight!------Who is this REALLY?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Are the Dead Alive Now?" was from books like
""The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and
"Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?",
complete with the question format.
Those of you who haven't read it recently should read this now...
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm
It should help those of you who actually care whether or not you're telling the truth
(which is not everyone, but is many people) what plagiarism IS and IS NOT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It was all photocopied from the works of others.
Are you in awe of his xerox machine?
He warmed himself at a fire he did not burn,
and sold a product-taking credit for it- that he stole from others.
Guess he should have heeded some of his own speeches to the corps aboutself-control, moderation or temperance. If he had, he would have taken in
far less tobacco and alcohol than he did,
which would have meant he wouldn't have caught cancer-
at least as young as he did-
and he might have lived to 90.
He was rather big on "do as I say and not as I do",
and was brilliant at manipulating his PUBLIC image.
That's why so many people who never interacted with him daily
remember him as FAR more dignified, far more temperate,
far less of an abuser of people, than others remember him-
those who DID spend time with him.
Feel free to be thankful to be working God's Word.
And remember that God Almighty is greater than any book containing His Words,
and greater than any person, class, book, or recording medium used to teach it.
You also might want to check and see if people knew things you didn't.
Even lcm's own reports of vpw reveal him as abusive of others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Sorry for OT, but I'm pretty sure the "Valusek" is none other than Jay, a high-school mate. I can't remember if I got him into the Way or not. If it was me, please tell him I'm sorry.
VPW's blatant plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty were just the tip of the iceberg considering his wholesale debauchery. Anybody that argues that what he taught is "truth" deserves the spoilage that bad leaven will cause...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I don't believe that you can say "of course not" around here...there are a number of people on this board who recognize this element of heresy for what it was: just another ripoff. This one from Arius.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
You've no grounds for that conclusion. You're applying the wrong risk factors to the wrong cancer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trumpeter
When I read Dr. Wierwille it’s as if the Heavenly Father Himself is speaking to me personally.
Sometimes, when I’m reading, I picture in my mind that I’m in the library of a large, elegant mansion. There’s a well laid fire and I’m comfortable in a finely upholstered wingback chair. Perhaps I’m sipping a rare single malt whiskey as well. In another wing back nearby sits the Lord Jesus Christ himself. We’re discussing the inherent accuracy of God’s wonderful, matchless Word.
He shows me, for example, how a particular passage from JCNG works and fits with one from RHST. Perhaps an article of Dr.’s from The Way Magazine (remember, ‘the magazine for people who Love God and His Word?) sheds some further light on our subject. It becomes dynamically thrilling and my heart burns within as the truth of God’s Word is opened to me.
Yes, I am genuinely thankful for Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. Thankful for his life and his work.
In fact, I’m a little antsy for that trumpet to sound because I’d like to go hunting and fishing with Victor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"When I read Dr. Wierwille it's as if the Heavenly Father himself is speaking to me personally".
Hmmmm?----Do you feel this same sensation when reading Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon, or Leonard?
Just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
I think someone's pulling our legs.
LG, I love your adherence to the facts, as usual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trumpeter
Waysider, it’s not a sensation really. It’s just something I have pictured in my mind on occasion.
I don’t get real excited about those guys although Kenyon is interesting especially when Dr. quotes him as he does in Living in God’s Living Room, WM 09/10-80 and God’s Blueprint of Creation, Vol. V.
Linda Z, as for you my dear, I’d love to get a gander at those gorgeous gams. Pulling them however is out of the question. Well, maybe, if you insist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WordWolf:
LG:
I have strong grounds for that conclusion.
Do you really need documentation that alcohol use, in large amounts over
long periods of time, damages the liver and the body's filtration systems,
leaving it vulnerable to illness?
I thought that was COMMON KNOWLEDGE by now.
Let me know if you need documentation.
Do you really need documentation that tobacco use, in large amounts over
long periods of time, exposes the body to cancer-causing agents (carcinogens)
and risks giving the user cancer?
The American Cancer Society issued warnings of this in the 1940s,
and hasn't stopped since!
I thought that was COMMON KNOWLEDGE by now.
Let me know if you need documentation.
Do you need documentation that vpw drank large amounts of alcohol and
smoked large amounts of tobacco? All the people who worked with him
personally have testified to it. He held morning meetings with a "coffee mug"
with alcohol in it, and privately had a cigar or cigarette in his hand all the
time (basically, whenever that hand didn't hold a drink.)
Why do you think he ALWAYS had those breath-mints around?
It wasn't to cover eating 3-day-old burritos...
I thought that was COMMON KNOWLEDGE by now,
and the documentation is all over these forums.
So, he weakened his liver and immune systems,
then exposed his body to cancer-causing tobacco.
And he got cancer of the liver.
You don't see this as logically proceeding one from the other?
Granted, I can't absolutely guarantee that the smoking and drinking
caused the tobacco, and weakened his body so it would have the
full damage it did. However, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, this is
the EXPECTED CONSEQUENCE of taking actions known to have
those results.
So, it is MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE that something else caused the
cancer. However, the logical conclusion of his stated actions was to
get cancer. He got cancer. The overwhelming likelihood is that he
got the cancer BECAUSE he did the things that GIVE you cancer.
This is not necessarily true of all people who get cancer.
However, you can DECREASE the odds of getting cancer by not doing
the things known to CAUSE cancer.
Don't want skin cancer? Don't tan in the sun.
And so on.
The man increased his odds to get cancer dramatically, and multiplied
it by weaking his immune system. If you consider it insufficient to say
that he set himself on a course TO get cancer, that's up to you, but
few educated adults who aren't trying to defend vpw would agree with
you. (Unless they work for a tobacco company.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ya see, here's the thing, Trumpeter.
When I was just a tyke of about 5 or 6, I desperately wanted a pony, not just any pony but a palamino pony. I guess it never occurred to me that kids in the inner city don't make good pony owners. One day I was outside playing "broomstick cowboy" with the little girl who lived a few doors down. As we looked toward the end of our block, out of nowhere we saw the most beautiful palamino pony gallop around the corner with his golden tale waving in the wind. We ran to the end of the block just in time to see him round the next corner. Again we chased him and had the same result. Our pursuit ended when we wound up where we started. Of course, there never was any pony but we wanted more than anything for our experience to be real.
I hope you catch that golden pony someday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
WW, LG is correct, and I'd hardly characterize him as a VPW apologist. I'd call him objective.
VPW had ocular melanoma, which frequently metastasizes to the liver and, when it does, often causes death. It didn't start in his liver and spread to his eye, but vice versa. This is significant, because different types of cancers have different, specific secondary sites they spread to.
A major risk factor for ocular (uveal) melanoma is overexposure to ultraviolet light. I read one study in which welders, for example, were found to have a high rate of this particular cancer. David Anderson, who is far, far from a VPW apologist, was involved in the filming of PFAL and attests to the fact that VPW's eyes were severely burned during the filming by the bright lights used on the set. People with blue eyes and fair hair, such as VPW, are also more vulnterable to ocular cancer.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with defending VPW and everything to do with keeping the facts straight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'll take your word for it concerning where it started and where it spread.
They're also prone to permanent eye damage if they don't wear their welder's mask.Correlation does not equal causation.
We know he exposed himself to bright lights over a 2-week period,
that he smoked and drank a lot over a few decades,
and that he went to the bathroom on a regular basis.
We know he later got cancer and died.
Some, all, or none of those may relate to the cancer.
We can eliminate going to the bathroom as a cause, since it's not known to be one. (No pun intended.)
We can NOT eliminate over 20 years of smoking, since it's a known carcinogen.
As for vpw being genetically predisposed to ocular cancer if exposed to ultraviolet light,
I'll say "maybe". For the sake of the discussion, I'll even go with "sure".
That is not synonymous with saying "bright studio lights for 2 weeks in the early 70s is a
possible or even likely source of cancer a decade later."
If his eyes were THAT sensitive, they would have been endangered as much by the bright
sunlight on the farm. (I, personally, wore anti-UV sunglasses during the day out there.
Even on overcast days.)
He was exposed to bright studio lights for a period of 2 weeks.
If you have any studies suggesting bright studio lights are a cancer risk, please share.
I'm not aware of them giving off significant amounts of UV light unless your studio is
doubling as a tanning salon and uses UV bulbs (which are LESS bright in the visible
spectrum and are unsuitable for filming.)
I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that he hurt his eyes from bright studio lights.
I do NOT find it reasonable to believe that the same incident gave him cancer from
studio lights. Again, if you've got some hard science, please present it.
So,
perhaps he was vulnerable to eye problems in general regardless, due to a genetic
predisposition. Perhaps he might even gotten eye cancer and died before now even
if he'd lived an ascetic life as a farmer who never smoked or drank. Cancer doesn't
follow a neat formula.
However,
I stand behind my statement that he placed himself at needless risk for cancer by
exposing his immune system to large amounts of alcohol over a long period of time,
and to constant amounts of a KNOWN cancer-causing agent over a long period of time.
Would smoking cigars and cigarettes lead to an eye-cancer?
Sure. The tissues of the eye are pretty porous to substances in the air.
Continual exposure to particles WILL affect them.
And if his eyes were VULNERABLE, as you say, then they might get cancer from
exposure faster than the more usual targets of the lungs, larynx, and so on.
Someone without that vulnerability might have gotten cancer a bit later,
and had throat surgery or something.
So,
I consider eye injuries during pfal to be indicative of eyes vulnerable to damage,
not the moment they were exposed to a cancer-causing agent.
(Unless someone can find me where studio lights kill people-
and LOTS of people get LOTS of studio light time. There should be a body count
from these things in Hollywood.)
And I'm equally concerned with trying to keep the facts straight, but we seem
to be interpreting them differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
It's on the death certificate.
I suggest that you Google ocular melanoma risk factors. You won't find smoking or drinking listed. You will find fair hair, fair skin, occupational UV light exposure, and having had several eye burns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
VP "wrote" 3 kinds of books.
+ plagiarized (stolen) material-- examples are given above in my earlier post; LOTS of it
+ chapters ghost written by other people for VP (which means he didn't write it himself)- like Chap 1 of JCNG, JCOP, etc. The intro of JCNG actually mentions the author of Chap 1, which was a real shock, because VP didn't like to credit others
+ stuff he made up on the fly. Most of the peripherals, magazine articles, plus much of JCNG were VP speaking off the cuff and people transcribing it for him. Really shallow stuff. For example, JCNG started as a tape (I think #295 or 299). If you listen to the tape, it's obvious he didn't put any research into it and was talking off the top of his head. If you read JCNG closely, it's also clear there (at least if you have any background in reading competent theological books) that it's really shallow and slipshod. There are very important passages that he sloughs off with just a couple of sentences. But listening to the tape is a real eye-opener. The tone of voice, the content, and everything are like a grade school kid telling his mom what he saw in the back yard that day, which is transcribed and passed off as a biology text. The shallowness on such a serious topic is disgusting. It's easy to produce voluminous "books" if you teach or preach a few times a week (as most pastors do) and have somebody to transcribe your teachings, preachings and/or ramblings.
Almost nothing is footnoted, except for some of the stuff other people wrote for him. The stuff VP babbled and plagiarized (which is most of it) has almost zero footnotes.
On another topic- it's true that VP got eye cancer first, and it spread to the liver. The death certificate can be found at www.abouttheway.org (it used to be www.abouttheway.com ) A friend of VP signed the certificate. While that may call into question its veracity, I would assume it is accurate nonetheless. In PFAL VP said that illness is caused by one's own negative believing. If VP's teaching on negative believing is true, then VP himself was a very negative believer and caused his own illness and death. I would have liked to see TWI be honest and either publically say that VP caused his own death (as VP said a mother caused the death of her child by being worried that he would have an accident), or else reject VP's teaching on this. But public honesty and transparency was never a habit of the upper levels of TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
My copy of the death certificate has no mention of the cancer starting in the eye and proceeding
to the liver, or vice versa-only that it was present in both places and was the cause of death.
So, I'm STILL taking Linda at her word that it did not start in the liver.
I did a quick check.
Occupational UV light exposure is irrelevant to the discussion, since nobody's established that
vpw was ever exposed to UV lights. Oddly, I DID see one study that said that they didn't
find that normal outdoor exposure to sunlight increased the risk, which I would have expected.
(UV light is UV light.)
"Several" eye burns was also mentioned, but I'd need someone confirming "yes, when I said
'several eye burns', that could include bright studio lights."
As for smoking, I expect it's thought of as in the "no duh" category.
One quick search showed that cigarettes (with their lesser tobacco than cigars) are plenty
carcinogenic themselves:
"Tobacco smoke contains 43 known carcinogens, including a number of known organ specific carcinogens, and compounds which assist with the formation of carcinogens within the body. Carcinogens and carcinogenic metabolites are carried through the body in the bloodstream, following absorption through the lungs. Smoking also affects metabolism and enzyme activity, which may affect carcinogenesis."
So, tobacco giving you cancer of the ANYTHING doesn't sound unusual to me.
It's most commonly connected with cancers connected to the respiratory system
(and cigars with cancers of the lip or jaw), but it's been connected to plenty of other
cancers: bladder, kidney, stomach, uterine cervix, vulvar, penis, anus, and pancreas.
Cigarette smoke itself damages the eye directly:
" Chemicals in tobacco cause damage to the macula (the most sensitive part of the retina, the back of the eye."
That's all off http://mens-health.health-cares.net/smoking-cancers.php
Another site with a laundry-list of how smoking damages the eye is
http://www.bouldereyesurgeons.com/redeyes5.htm
Alcohol is already known to be a risk factor for cancer of the liver.
BTW, there's some disagreement whether the UV occupational exposure really is
a risk factor or not- experts seem to not all be in agreement.
I think I may want to put the question directly to an organization or two, asking them to
spell out if tobacco is considered a risk for ocular cancer like it is cancer of so many other
organs.
Now, I'm curious, though.
What is the proof the cancer started in the EYE and spread to the LIVER?
Now that I've done some reading, it seems more common to start in the LIVER
and spread to the EYE than vice versa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
You're not reading the death certificate correctly, WordWolf. For some reason, GS is one of only a couple of places I can get to on the Internet right now, so I can't quote, but it says something like metastatic melanoma of the liver as the cause of death and cites ocular melanoma as the primary (the initial site from which the cancer spread to the liver).
Okay, that odd glitch is gone and I can view the death certificate. It cites "Metastatic Melanoma of the Liver" as the cause of death. To the right of that, it indicates that the liver cancer was diagnosed about 1 month prior to death. On the next line, it cites the ocular melanoma, and to the right of that indicates that it was diagnosed about 18 months prior to death.
Edited by LGLink 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.